Volume 7, Issue 1
Perhaps we should examine the State of Fate.
Fate is defined in part as the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; the decreed cause of events. The ancients believed in predetermined destiny. Prophets have proclaimed that fate is the ultimate conclusion of the purpose of life. What is congruent in these philosophies is the underlying driving element that the natural forces of society are composed of the natural inclinations of individuals. Like the natural forces of nature, the attitudes and actions of any society in a particular time can be reconstituted, restructured, or even redirected, but society will always seek its natural state.
In nature, water is in its natural state as a liquid between 32 and 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Any environmental conditions outside of these temperatures are uncomfortable for life. Water can be frozen or boiled for specific purposes. But to maintain ice or steam requires commitment of resources and costs that must be measured. What is the benefit of the diversion from the natural substance? Under normal conditions, water will always default to its natural state of a liquid. This is the natural order of the physical world.
The structure of society, as a reflection of the natural characteristics of human nature, also defaults to a natural order. To alter, change, or restructure society by government requires a tremendous use of resources at a cost that must be measured. What is the benefit to society to intervene in the natural state?
Liberals believe that all things should be owned equally by all the people. The government’s role is to manage all assets of the State for the redistribution of all wealth. Only through socialism, or its near cousin of an economy managed by the government through regulation, can true equality be achieved.
Conservatives believe in the concept of free enterprise. All assets belong to everyone equally through the equal opportunity of unrestricted pursuit of happiness. Private enterprise produces choices for society and the free markets redistribute wealth. The government’s role is to ensure fairness and establish a social safety net to provide security for all individuals.
Liberals scream and cry foul that this is too-simple an analysis. They argue that privilege still distorts equal opportunity, that prejudice and bias still exist and must be policed by government for justice to be the societal result.
What, then, is the truth? To answer this question, one should ask why is the United States of America indisputably the most powerful nation on earth? As a country, America is not only the most powerful economic and military power, it is the constitutional beacon of liberty. Why has the U.S. achieved such success? One might say we defend freedom. Yet another may argue that, even given our flaws, we truly believe that all men are created equal. Both of these arguments are salient, but they still do not answer the question of why the success.
In the examination of the definition of fate, the United States, in its Declaration of Independence, got one thing exactly right. Each individual is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This pursuit of happiness, combined with the law of liberty, is an individual right to be determined by each individual person. The government is to have little or no say in the choice or circumstances of the pursuit. In this concept of liberty, the United States founded the principle of non-conformity. We are different in our ideals, skills, and our desires. We are designed to find a purpose in life that maximizes our skill set in relationship to each other in the production of goods and services. In finding our maximum potential through our individual choice of pursuit of happiness, we find joy, completeness, and peace.
In the collective enterprise of societal non-conformity, the United States has realized unprecedented achievement in science, the arts, movies, culture, sports, education, and family enterprises. America is the cultural essence of thinking outside the box. It is this non-conformity, based upon freedom and liberty without government intervention, that has allowed so many to reach their full potential.
Why, then, in a world of 2019, wherein the community of sovereign nations operates in a global economic network, international alliances, and system of world treaties, do we find ourselves in such acrimonious debate? The U.S. federal government is currently shut down in the dispute over a border wall. Stock markets gyrate. International trade between the U.S. and China is in jeopardy. Great Britain and Europe face crises over Brexit. Why does this political trauma persist given the modern attributes of a global world system?
Because not all governments believe in individual freedom.
Further examination of the border wall dispute sheds light on the real problem. President Trump will address the nation tonight to make the case that border security is in crisis. He may call for emergency action by Executive Order. The Democrats will file lawsuits in federal court demanding proof of a crisis. President Trump over-extended by declaring during his campaign that Mexico would pay for the wall. Why would they? By paying for the wall, they would actually be imprisoning their people. This would be like Germany building the Berlin Wall. Why would they do that? It would be cheaper for Mexico to reform their society and pay to provide services to their citizens.
The Democrats are not being totally honest when they say they want border security. Why not genuinely debate a solution? It is incomprehensible to think that the United States does not have the resources and the technology to secure the southern border. We do. What we lack is the political will of Congress to do so.
Newly installed Speaker Nancy Pelosi argues that the wall is immoral. So is drug and sex trafficking. Some argue that only 20% of drugs and sexual kidnappers cross into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. Eighty percent enter through ports and other legal points of entry. Therefore, the 80% problem should be solved first. Why not solve both problems of illegal entry? Why is 20% not worth the commitment to southern border security? It is immoral to allow 1% of the sex trafficking trade in North America to breach that border. If we truly care about immigrants as a sub-set of society, then we should care about protecting all people in terms of basic rights.
What, then, is the true driving force of the partisan divisiveness? It is simply a fight over the role of government and managing society for the purported goals of equality. Liberals believe in socialism. Conservatives believe in the collective actions of individuals. Socialism demands conformity and restriction of choices in pursuit of happiness. Individual freedom allows for new ideas of non-conformity in providing societal solutions. The bottom line of the debate should be, what is the measure of cost as to each form of government?
The natural forces of society are just like the natural forces of nature, consistent and perpetual. Any effort to governmentally engineer different social outcomes will result in a distortion in the natural state. The U.S. Constitution has proven satisfactory in providing equal opportunity. Government services, as a humanitarian effort to support security of life, should be the compendium of program structures.
The State of Fate is enshrined in the nature of mankind. Whether by sins of the flesh or evolution, the strong will not always protect the weak. Laws emanating from a constitution, delivered by a democracy for the protection of equal rights, are critical to the formula for righteousness in society. The lifeblood of freedom and liberty requires the unrestricted ability of original thought for the pursuit of happiness. Conformity is not worth the measure of the cost in diminishing the value of non-conformity that is essential in the integrity of freedom and liberty.
Individual rights of liberty and freedom are ordained by the Creator. They are not to be challenged or restricted by government.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?