NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at

Thank you for your interest and participation.

An open forum for general question asking and engaging in pervasive discussions.

Unread post November 28th, 2013, 9:53 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

‘Democracy’: A Codeword for Socialism

From upon what prestigious right or from which exceptional conception do the various branches of government (as throughout the local, state, or federal levels) acquire legal empowerments to compel their so-stated—political or social—agendas, commandments, demands, moralities, or requisites upon any individual citizen or the whole of society in general?

Are the limitations of such empowerments but only the whims and fancies of those succeeding public offices, granted unto them merely through the electoral process and provided breadth only by their own imagined creativity; or rather is it not realized only from the contextually self-evident organic and supreme laws of our Nation—as organizationally represented by the unchanging maxims outlined within the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments?

How could either your family or you ever dare to honestly assert that you had each lived according to your own arrangements, selections, and personal desires, all while applying your own reasoned life choices and logical mindedness, or sound judgment, or personal experience? When the fact has now been crystallized (If the process of ratifying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)/”Obamacare” (i.e., H.R. 3590) has served to prove anything it is this point.) that through a very small group of individuals (i.e., a politicalized cabal or duopoly), virtually any, or every, aspect of you and your family’s lives may at the collective whim and fancy of those occupying public offices be adjusted, mandated, restricted, revoked, or suspended—including de facto morphing acknowledged individually sovereign rights into pejorative collective privileges?

Until finally one day, all such aspects of our entire lives are to become intertwined, and yet further intermingled, from one-day-to-the-next by a myriad of anonymous, unaccountable, and unelected individuals through their ceaseless writing and rewriting of executive regulations and interagency policies and procedures. Such was even foreknown by our Forefathers, Alexander Hamilton for example, stated:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.

Rather, is not the purpose of existence for all humankind, each individual’s life, all about working to better oneself and those around them, their community and environment—meanwhile striving for personal achievement and recognition, individual appreciation and worth; and pursuing the obtainment of vast knowledge and experience; the realization of truth, virtue, and wisdom; the mastering of one’s own chosen skills, interests, or hobbies; and the enjoyments, comforts, and pleasures of reaping the individualistic abilities provided through learning from either the trivium or quadrivium?

In fact, living a life of liberty, at its core entails the freedom to selectively contract, to bargain, and to arrange an individual’s private affairs in a manner consistent with one’s private beliefs and personal perceptions. Ergo, to retain one’s private consideration without any external impedance.

Enlightening as to the above (as just one of a myriad of other such examples), is there any justness or validity in demanding healthcare coverage for a younger or middle-aged individual that maintains a high level of health through them making responsible decisions about what they consume, how they live, and who they associate with? Is to do so not make unconstitutional by the act of taking private property for public use without first providing them with appropriate compensation? Does such a mandate not completely annul the fixed principle of quid pro quo? The taxing of individuals so as to meet such ends is made unconstitutional, for being wholly without the grant of taxing powers bestowed upon the Legislature, which is sanctioned only for the purposes of raising revenue to pay public debt incurred in the course of providing for the general welfare and common defense of and for only the United States Government (including its possessions) and nothing more, yes?

Moreover, why are those all throughout government ignoring the honest crux of the debate over healthcare coverage mandates—that being a combination of: (1) extraordinary punitive damages awarded by courts in malpractice or civil tort cases (e.g., vast multimillion dollar payouts); (2) outrageous price gouging for medical treatments, operations, and materials (e.g., $20 for an aspirin or bandage, $40 for an icepack, $500 for ambulance transportation, $2,000 to set and cast a broken bone, $5,000 per-day spent in a hospital bed within a shared room, $500,000 for heart surgery, $1-million per treatment of chemotherapy, etc.); and (3) the overtaxing of the populace for each of their local, state, and federal governments leaving individuals with a fractioned sum of money while still further being taxed in the process of spending their leftover portion largely upon the necessities of living modern life?

To strip away from society its propensity for seeking out individualism is to relegate each such individual unto a subservient and diminished means of existence, effectively procuring governmentally sanctioned peonage (i.e., a neo-slavocracy within this respect). Such does little other than to pave a path for the loss of personal identity, wanes motivation and free-will, while dissolving both purpose and self-importance; in fact the only perceivable gains are grossly negative in their very nature—utter destitution and dependency.

For those holding public offices to dare inject their covert agendas or motives, thereby providing cover for them to hastily possess profound absolutism over the private affairs of its populace—besetting us each into lifelong dependence, while being readily lead into submission through strategic subjugation—is to damn us all to a manufactured lifestyle that is eventually to be carried out virtueless, not as a wondrous enjoyment to behold but as an unrelenting sentence to be loathed. It is easily conceivable that any government (this including all levels of government within the boarders of United States of America) may portentously direct the will of its own populace, inducting them to live under pauperism, simply by burdening them with taxation through one form, followed by the methods of another, until they are left with nothing more than their own faint voices for which to beg at the grace of those fortunate enough to ascend into the throne of public office.

In conclusion, it is vastly important to acknowledge that advocating for “democracy” is relationally similar to decreeing under the guise of public law, the uniformed inchmeal of another’s property or personalty, or worse yet their dignity; along with substantiating the punishing of individual purpose, productivity, and pride; meanwhile waning individualism, and effecting an ochlocratic-demagogy means of governing by pathos. Oddly enough, at least in due course, isn’t the ultimate result of supporting such tact (as a method of instilling class-warfare amongst society) only to sprawl resentment, indignation and condemnation amongst the populace, while certainly “third-railing” one’s political career?

Return to Public Podium