Article Image
Letters to the Editor • Philosophy of Liberty

Normalcy Syndrome

Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. - Thomas Jefferson

This is a discussion that hits at the root of all mankind, on what some call 'Human Normalcy Syndrome', or more commonly known as a 'fear of change'.

The Citizens of the United States elected Barrack Obama on the idea that change was needed and that he would organize and motivate the people, to put our best qualified heads together to effect the necessary changes to alter our nation’s direction into the 21st century.

That has yet to happen in any substantive manner and instead the course of action has been the status quo. Not only is the same basic systems in place, many of the same players are still at the helm of the most powerful positions in our society. Expecting a different result, as the clique goes, is insane, as is the unwillingness to change.

Despite all the evidence that the Keynesian economic model is a failure, we continue on this failed path. People refuse to acknowledge that the Keynesian Model is just the same old modified communistic model promoted during the mid 1800s, known as Fascism in Political Economics; the use of taxation and regulation to control the means of production.

Contrary to the opinions of those deceived, Karl Marx was not looking out for the best interest of the majority and, in fact, was financed by the very people that were still in power at the time, despite the various revolutions during the past century. The Communist Manifesto was written to deceive the average Citizen into believing that government controls through regulation and the necessary taxation, would transform a society into a more equitable system, when in fact it is a system set up to be controlled through central planning by those with socio-economic power and is the heart and soul of the communist model.

How can it be that “Taxation”, the use of force to take away property from those that it rightfully belongs to and give it to those that it does not rightfully belong, be a good thing?  How can this redistribution of wealth through the use of force through Police Power, create a society that is ethical in its foundation? Should we expect an ethical outcome from an unethical action because it is done by political means? If one group can legally force another group to do something that it feels is “not” in the best interest of the majority, how can that be good? Even thinking that your group can know what is in the best interest of the majority, is erroneous logic. How can I know what is in your best interest, much less the majorities? No wonder we have so many insane government programs that end up failing miserably at their objectives. Welfare, the drug war, unemployment, $USD Devaluation, Environmental Protections, Energy Policy, Education, Foreign Wars, Healthcare and just about every government program in existence. For Instance, does the fear of change really make you agree to continue to experience poor educational results from public educations, rather then begin the transfers to private education for our children. With double digit dropout rates and truancy, do you really want to continue on this failed direction because teachers unions weld such huge amounts of power backed up by property taxes that are coerced from property owners via police power. If people though it was a good idea, we wouldn’t need police power as Home Schoolers’ apparently understand.             

At some point in history we must stop the use of governmental force via Police Power and start fresh. Even though the redistributed of wealth has shifted major amounts of wealth towards the super wealthy and their cronies, believing that government will redistribute the wealth back to the majority is an extremely erroneous concept (Keynesian Economics) that has done just what Karl Marx was asked to achieve; deceive the majority. Few understand for instance, the true reason for regulations are not to protect the consumer, but to provide thorough knowledge to the existing multi-national corporation and their bankers, of new and existing business that limits those businesses ability to compete against the multi-nationals. Or provide subsidies to those same multi-national companies to assist them in doing things that they should pay for themselves. All the regulatory reporting and required evaluations give the most powerful companies every aspect of their competitors business model. It is literally a subversive method of limiting or eliminating, and they do both, competition and the majority wonder why the major multi-national corporations, pay little tax yet maintain high profits, when the majority, primarily smaller businesses, struggle to keep their businesses afloat. Go figure, that subsides and regulations give an advantage to the very corporations that are ripping off the majority.    

Wouldn’t it rather be smart to start a new course rather than continue for one more minute under the existing course? Our society is going to go into civil unrest, if we do not redirect our ambitions and it will be worse the longer we wait, as the last 50 years have shown. The sooner we substantially alter our course to the Austrian Economic Model (Free Enterprise), the sooner we will start to fix the many problems now affecting our society. The longer we remain fearful of change the worst it will get. 

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: