Exploring the Social Imagination

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Who is the Naked Socialist in the Social Imagination?

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson November 29, 1802. 

Sadly, this nation is doing just that. The ruling elite are wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. How? Their agenda/goal is being achieved by the rejecting and or deconstructing the individual so that he/she will not work for themselves but work for the state. Now, I understand this could even sound good to a baby Christian but the problem is ... who is the state? This is a fallen world and those at the top are included in this fallen 'state'. The ugly truth is that they are no more caring about the people than is a benevolent Santa Claus who leaves a lump of coal and justifies it by saying "You weren't good enough this year".

According to Paul B.Skousen, in his book - The Naked Socialist, such ruling elites have a strategy to reject and deconstruct the individual. They call themselves: Progressives and or Liberals, or Pro-Socialists. They use shaming, envy and force to reject and deconstruct the individual. What exactly is their agenda/goal? Their goal is to create a top down centrally steered society. In practice, "Socialism is government using force to change society." And, they mean to change it so that they control it. Isn't' government by the people? Used to be, but not anymore. Government in many countries including the US is owned/controlled by ruling elites, people with power and wealth and they want to keep it while at the same time lift the guilt they have because of their power and wealth so they proclaim to be for everybody... but everybody has to agree that they no better. The only way to achieve that is by dividing people with emotion and fear and then taking over of course for their own good.

As Skousen writes, these people stir up envy to achieve their goal. Stirring up envy- Hillary Clinton, "The rich are not paying their fair share..." Barack Obama, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." And, "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too." Hillary Clinton, " Too many people have made too much money off eliminating opportunities for caring for people instead of expanding those." Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men" (Now I know where the idea that white men won't work came from). Michelle Obama, "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then some is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that some else can have more." 

Again, as Skousen writes, they use force. Stirring up force - Joe Biden, "You know we're going to control the insurance companies." Bill Clinton, " A lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." And, "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." Hillary Clinton, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Barack Obama, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

And, even now readers may find themselves agreeing that all of this doesn't sound so bad. But, how many of you are willing to give up their pie so that someone else can have .... more? You wouldn't willingly but by force you sure would.  Skousen provides before page one, the seven pillars of socialism: 1-All powerful rulers, 2- Society divided into castes or classes, 3- All things in common, 4- All things regulated, 5- Compliance is forced, 6- Control of information, and 7- No unalienable rights. 

For some as Skousen points these pillars represent two different ideas: 1- Beautiful promise and 2- A regime. The naked socialist prefers you to see it as the beautiful promise rather than as the regime. Wonder why? Exactly. Why? Because, there can be no control or sovereignty of the people. No government for and by the people. Why? Because, the elites in government who promote and desire socialism do it only to their benefit and yours too as they show you the way forward using the beautiful promise that you have a right to but will never actually have, because its a lie to begin with. 

The socialist agenda is based on rights as much as is a democratic republic. The difference is that their rights and your rights are two different things. People are taken in by their rights because they just don't know rights and certainly not even their own. Socialism destroys natural rights. Understanding human rights is to understand socialism -Skousen. America's Founding Father's identified two basic rights: those vested by the government and those natural or unalienable - gifts from the Creator - Skousen. So, vested are those granted by the government which means they can be revoked as easily as granted. Well, that sounds harsh. 

No...because vested rights allow people to move as freely as they can without causing harm to others. For instance, the right to drive a car (right taken away when you drive drunk and kill someone), the right to own property house/land (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes... why pay taxes? You pay for the right to ban other's from your property, so you pay for the private right to use it) start a business (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes or fail to follow ordinances, health regulations etc.). There are more but the point is that these fall under free decision to participate in a social contract. 

What about natural rights as those are the ones that socialism is after. The first natural right is universal, it applies equally to everyone: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in a social contract, this is taken away if you cause someone else to lose their natural rights - i.e. murder someone). The second is that natural rights impose no obligation on another person which means that your right to something cannot be greater than someone else's or cause them to give up their rights for yours. Thirdly, your natural right carries the responsibility to use the natural right respectfully, not to harm or misuse. 

Why is the socialist after your natural rights? He/she is because they realize that their position of power is not really theirs to have and to keep. Not when the people are sovereign. They also seem to doubt that the people know how to govern themselves. But, then aren't they themselves a person like any other? The second natural right is the biggest of their problems because they realize that they cannot be over and above anyone as no one can be or certainly if this is a naturally right everyone can be. Actually, it boils down to the idea that no one can or has to give up what is theirs like money or property for the right of someone else to have it. Because, those people would have to give up their money and property as they get it and give it to someone else who has that right. What trumps that cascading event is that your natural right carries responsibility to use the natural right respectfully. 

In socialism, the government takes away your natural rights to make sure that you follow the 'laws' governing natural rights and they do this declaring that they are in charge of human rights. The naked socialist in the social imagination doesn't trust you because they don't trust themselves with natural rights. They forget that vested rights work with/for natural rights for the common good; and thus, they shouldn't worry or try to take over because in a democratic republic more people are free indeed than under the thumb of a top down socialist government.

 * Source - The Naked Socialist by Paul B. Skousen. 2012.

No comments :

Post a Comment