LIBERTY

21 01 2015

Authored by William Robert Barber

As a child I was taught the traditional adaptation of America and throughout my maturing years these teachings were institutionally reinforced. I do distinctively remember standing amongst my classmates: right hand over my heart, facing the stars & stripes, and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Every morning, vis-à-vis this pledge of fidelity, the traditional adaptation of America was proclaimed, reinforced, and convincingly validated within my heart and mind. I was a believer.

Well, after many years of posturing as an errant knight, wholly focused on chasing the shadows of what did not exist, the great god of circumstance and serendipity propelled my helter-skelter traverse through the gauntlet of life’s variant of illusions, misdirections, and factoids. As if a falling leaf vectored by the wind inclined to favor the fatuous, disengaged from any sense of rational or reasonable, I disregarded lucid thoughts. Then, one fine day I awoke and took measure of my world.

The experience abated my naivety and induced a degree of cognitive enhancement; such activated my heretofore indifferent to benign cerebral into analytical action. The result of such action was the recognition that America’s founding documents were in reality a theme of fragile ideals. These noble ideals were fragile because they were susceptible to perverse distortions; I ascertained that the America I was taught as a child was never a genuine fact of being, but a comforting perception that resembled a wish more than a reality.

However, and withstanding America’s reality, the ideals’ Leitmotive in America’s founding documents are profound examples of the working pluralism of differing and competing ideals. Ideals that despite the at times confrontational differing the convention of the peoples’ representatives agreed on a constitutional document that valued the individual and pronounced liberty as the prima verities of governing.

Withstanding the meaningfulness of the historically unique event of 1789, a document is nothing more than a compendium of words. Words require commensurate action. And action depends on people and people are a variable of good, bad, indifferent, unpredictably, as well as instigators and practitioners of dysfunctional behavior. America is an ideal in the making and that making invariably depends on its people. This democratic republic has proven its desire to correct and amend; it has strived to remedy and satisfy; faults and deficiencies aside, America is a country with a genuine inclination to do what’s righteous.

A truth: from forces within and external liberty is besieged by the constant threat of diminution; the price of and for liberty is nothing less than a continuum of recompense in diligence and blood. In its finality, to sustain its meaningfulness, liberty is substantive only if one is willing to risk and even loose one’s life. Additionally, liberty is a virtue whose vitality requires a consciousness of judiciously applied skepticism. The fact is government and its role in governing requires a stringent adherence to a deft sense of askance. Governmental authority either explicit or implied, even in a democratic republic, must be limited if one is to remain a free people.

President Obama offers to those that have less, the certainty of financial assurances and warranties; he implies that education is free and that health services are a right of citizenship. He has explicitly lied, embellished, misdirected, and habitually offset the truth of the matter to exact a political initiative. The president and his cadre of liberal progressives have advantaged the traditional ideals of America to serve their definition of the greater good. They have done so by diverting the rights of the individual in favor of the illusive collective.

Lenin could not distinguish his perception of governing from President Obama’s. Both politicians as a perquisite to implementing their governing tenets must siphon and deplete the élan, ethos, and accepted meaningfulness of liberty. A democratic republic cannot exist without liberty. Individual liberty is the prize.

Advertisements




THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT AND THE LOSS OF ONE’S PRIVACY

13 01 2015

Authored by William Robert Barber

Allegedly purposed to curtail illegal activities, with every crisis — whether it is drug trafficking, organized crime, money laundering, Jihadist inspired terrorism, or specific directives issued by a federal agency — individual liberties and privacy rights are abated disproportionately and somewhat surreptitiously,

The cause for diminishment of America’s tradition of individuality is premised, tokened, and marketed for acceptance as a necessary evil. This action, determined and managed by federal authorities, has forced the inverse meaning of liberty. Wherein liberty was defined as individual in substance and scope, today, liberty is defined as what benefits the collective good.

We Americans have lost, traded, or given away not only our (if only traditional) rights to privacy; but also the convenience of anonymity has vanished. One’s privacy is controlled by those we know and those we do not know, without our permission and often without our knowledge; our image is stored and disseminated. These days secrets are rare. Social media has ubiquitously replaced the once limited dissemination of rumors, innuendos, and outright lies. When blaming the loss of one’s privacy of course technology is the culprit. But it’s technology in the hands of government that is (for me) most disconcerting.

The central government and a multitude of other governments within the United States are so coercively powerful that fear of governmental power is now a natural phenomenon. The ambiguities of statutory laws imbedded within the plethora of regulatory rules and guidelines when accompanied with a fear of government’s overwhelming power creates a citizenry of enigmatic disregard.

Two of the branches of the federal government are so adrift in the amok of “the process” that bewilderment rules. The average citizen functioning with common means is more an “object to manage” than an individual person. The Marxian concepts of collectivism though don’t necessarily dominate within America’s sociopolitical sphere of cause and effect has suppressed the acceptance of exceptionalism as an American virtue. Existentialism, rationalism, and empiricism are — as with the Judeo-Christian principles of faith – no longer ubiquitously defined as “being an American.”

The growth of government, the complexities of its laws, the ambiguity of governmental process, and all the unaccountable intangibles that keystone the underpinning of a free society is at risk of impairment. Those Americans living in the middle and in between have developed a benign malignant disquiet, a sort of disbelieve in what might be possible. A sardonic attitude for those better off has eclipsed the bygone American belief that one can better one’s life through hard work and determination. The loss of privacy does not mean that such a loss is displaced by a transparency of truthfulness or verity. It does mean that government power is only sustained by growing.