To We or Not To We

I recently heard a news analyst ask a question similar to the following: "What if Obama is a socialist? Is that illegal?" The answer, of course, is no, it's not illegal. Mr. Obama is protected by the same constitution that protects us all and, as a result, is just as free to exhibit his ignorance as the rest of us. The fact that he would circumvent that same document, even to the point of rendering it obsolete, still doesn't preclude him from being protected by it.

Of course, many of those foolish enough to vote for him might not like the fact that he's a socialist, particularly because he ran his campaign as a moderate liberal. He certainly can't be accused of being the first politician to lie about his agenda in order to gain sufficient power to advance it. After all, had he run as a socialist, there's no doubt he would not have been elected to his current office.

While he is free to say and/or believe what he chooses, his ideology would preclude the remainder of us from that same freedom. Socialism requires the individual to subvert personal gain for the betterment of the whole. In short, the people subjected to a socialist regime are forced, against their will if necessary, to provide the fruits of their labor for the benefit of others. Another word for this is slavery. Now, last I recall, THAT is illegal.

Concerning rights and privileges

This morning I heard a news article concerning the health care piracy bill signed into law today by the president. The commentator indicated that the question hinged on whether a person thought that health care was a right or a privilege. It occurred to me that those who pushed this down our throats don't consider it a right at all. Instead they consider it a responsibility. I base this assumption on the fact that they seem bent on forcing us to maintain insurance. If it were a right, then there would be no such requirement.

Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.