more on charity and good will towards mankind and being born equal...

we'll never be able to force 'everyone' on the planet to embrace the fact that helping out each other actually benefits 'self' and makes happiness and existing/survival possible, as the loopholes to this fact aren't capable of being erased, and disagreeing with forced charity is actually logical. And, actually, in the attempt to force everyone to 'do the right thing', more is lost to corruption, mismanagement and incompetence (via the gigantic bureaucracy) than could be gained and achieved were it totally voluntary and personally/locally monitored and managed! Forced charity via taxes, be they local, state or federal, basically kills the core of what charity is supposed to be, as well as being in direct violation of the principles themselves.

And in my previous post I explained the other part of charity that can't be achieved when it's by force - because charity is one part of being human that is vital to our progress and growth as a whole - and it doesn't require 'every single person' simultaneously being the givers - there are always recipients, and they are, through the giving, eventually meant to become givers themselves - we make it impossible for them to do this when we are forced to maintain them as recipients, which kills the human spirit and progress.

Take Africa, for example - with all the charity throughout the decades, we made it impossible for the self-motivated farmer to become independent and to lead his local people to prosper and become independent - because who can compete with 'free charity food' ?

We made entire communities reliant upon governments and international agencies that meant well but ended up creating long term, unsustainable, and illogical situations that all these decades later still struggle and grow to proportions that can't be maintained much longer... especially in today's economy. All of those 'good intentions' led the people of Africa to the same false sense of security our government forced upon our Senior Citizens by forcing them their entire working lives to pay into a system for Social Security and Medicare that now is not there for them in the promised capacities and will, in very short order, become unsustainable... and then what?



Attempting to force 'correct behaviors' and/or 'morality' also doesn't work - because there's a difference of opinion on what is correct and/or moral, and not just in religious terms, but in social and political terms, too.

Which is why our founding fathers set up sovereignty for each state - so that you could personally select a state and defend a state constitution that best reflected your personal, be they religious or non-religious, ideologies about what is moral and best for the common good.

So if one state out there wanted to have no taxes but a bare minimum to support a very small local and state government, with no mandates or laws that were in conflict with the principles of being born equal and a mutual respect and responsibility for the protection of the principles and rights - that state would have every right to tell the federal government that it could not impose any socialistic ideology upon it and its people.


Our founding fathers understood, far better than we do hundreds of years later, that morality is not ours to judge each other upon - it is not our place with each other, it is not our right - the only things we absolutely have to agree upon are the principles that all men are born equal in terms of rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit/seeking and obtaining of happiness - and that we won't lie, cheat and/or steal from each other. That is all there is to this... it's literally that simple.

And every law, every thing we do, work, play, love, and personal aspirations/goals - must be held up to those principles.

But... we've been led to believe that the role of government is to 'take care' of things - when, actually, our founding fathers never intended for the government to 'own' those principles and to force them upon citizens, nor to 'take care' of anything but the protection of those rights - the citizens themselves already were BORN with those principles, and it was up to them, as individuals or through private sector groups and/or churches, to be responsible for those principles, and to live by them. And to protect them. And within their own communities, to take care of one another, simply by abiding by those principles. Churches and private sector charities were supposed to take care of each communities varying social issues - as each community's issues would be different. Using the principles, only those in a community who could or wanted to help out would have to - and they always did. It's human nature - we are born with those principles!

The principles, after all, aren't that complicated. Government wasn't supposed to be complicated. Neither was 'getting along' supposed to be complicated - but it sure has become complicated - now there's laws for 'groups' instead of the essence of humanity, which is that we ARE all born equal IN TERMS of our desire to be free and to have liberty, not as groups, but as sovereign individuals in sovereign states - that we agree to protect each other, as a whole, if even one sole individual is having ANY right infringed upon by either another citizen or the government itself - all threats, foreign or domestic.

The penalties for a crime can't be harsher just because you belong to a group selected to be 'more worthy of harsher penalties.' That insinuates that some lives are 'worth' more than other lives - or that being born a certain race, or a certain sexuality, or a certain gender, or any selection deemed 'more protected' flies in the face of all of us being born equal.

There were already laws to protect each of us, equally - in the dividing up based on any attribute, it automatically strips us of our equality in terms of our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit/seeking and obtaining of happiness. It's the equivalent of saying "My life is more important and should be more protected, because I'm a woman." or "My life is more important and should be more protected, because I'm -insert anything you want here.-"

The irony is - because we gave up that agreeing to equalness, and thus stripped the core of the principles and definition of liberty out of our rational thought process when making laws, we proved the paraphrased quote of Benjamin Franklin accurate: Those who sacrifice liberty for safety lose both.

No group or individual is safer - the penalties are just harsher. If harsh penalties worked with 100% percentages, murder of any sort would have ceased centuries ago. All harsher penalties do is perpetuate discourse and maintain a self-inflicted unequalness.

It's almost as if we're yelling back at the founding fathers: "We are all not born equal in terms of our rights to life, liberty, property and the seeking and obtaining of happiness. Some of us are worthy of more protection. Some of us deserve more assistance throughout our lives, even if it means the government forces others to assist us, not out of desire or kindness or good will towards mankind, but out of fear of harsh penalties."

Crimes continue to be committed, in spite of harsher penalties - all those harsher penalties do is to make us question our equalness (not me, personally - I know we are all born equal, in spite of laws that are repugnant to that fact. I don't question our equalness.)

I'm hoping that more and more people will investigate the role of government, as it has done a disservice to us by making us all believe it is the keeper of those principles and the entity that gets to implement those principles by force.

The principles are ours - and the responsibility to them is to be ours.