| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 41° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
February 23, 2005
Internet promotes freedom in nations that are not free
This transition has not been easy and it is far from over. Even in countries once thought to be as free as ours, people are finding out their governments have spoon-fed them those rights they wished their people to have, and withheld those that might diminish the government's control. The list of which nations participate in this exercise will surprise you. China is making inroads to a more capitalistic society while clutching firmly to the autocratic rule of force imposed 56 years ago by the communist Mao Tse-Tung. Their economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, but the people are still not allowed the basic right to vote. Russia has been attempting, or so they say, to move away from a similar communist dictatorship with less than inspiring results. Today, the leadership has again begun to tighten the noose of rule by terror and intimidation that was the hallmark of the former Soviet Union. This move answers many questions as to why they seem to be supporting the dictatorships of the Middle East rather than aiding in the war on terror. Other less autocratic but very socialistic countries such as Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, and most of the countries our citizens immigrated from, have changed little in the last four score and seven years. While all provide their people with an election system to provide a semblance of democracy or republican ideals, the inner core of their institutions ensure the status quo of socialist programs will prevail. And therein resides the greatest danger to our perceived liberty here at home. All of these countries have entrenched bureaucracies that will stop at nothing to maintain control over the tax structure and its accompanying enforcement arms. In Canada, access to information, until recently, has been restricted to the Canadian Broadcasting Network. In England it's the BBC. Each has learned control of the news is key to maintaining power. The fact most of the populations of the earth have had their information filtered to them through government-approved sources has not been widely known or accepted as fact. Soviet bureaucrats were so good in their disinformation techniques they were able to convince our reporters no unemployment, crime, drugs or hunger existed in their communist society. Possessing this final approval authority on what can be told, and how, has enabled them to remove many of the liberties we have taken for granted for so many years. Private ownership of firearms, suppression of people's right to exercise their religious beliefs by imposition of secular rights by denying the existence of God; removal of protections from unreasonable search and seizure; limiting private property ownership; and the basic liberty of competition have been put into the hands of regulators. This concept is so foreign to most Americans they simply do not believe it possible. Yet it is, it is spreading, and in some ways, it has taken hold right here in the USA. To prevent such abuses the Constitution was written as protection for the people against an intrusive and overbearing government. The founding fathers were represented by Germans, Irish, Scottish, English, French and Dutch refugees who had lived under the weight of unfeeling and irrational regulators and came to understand the only way to prevent the loss of liberty was to vest all power in the hands of the people. After putting their ideas in writing, they were still not satisfied the excesses of government could be contained so they wrote the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and called them the Bill of Rights. They included very clear requirements to amend the Constitution so it could not easily be changed. They hoped this would ensure liberty for their posterity. In spite of their absolute best efforts however, over a period of roughly the last 80 years, our elected leaders have grown the government far beyond anything originally intended. Programs are created without secure or permanent funding, legislators' primary reason for existing is to be re-elected, and the only guarantee our representatives will provide is that government will continue to cost more and more and more. They have been able to get away with this because our media naively chose to believe government could actually solve problems. This became their mantra during the evolution of communist progressivism after the first world war. For those who have forgotten, that was the war to end all wars. Once again, as if by a gift from heaven above, our nation has been granted the ability to see situations clearly through exposure to all aspects of an issue. As this information continues to expand in its availability and content, the people will be even better served, and perhaps be able to reclaim some of the control over their government our founders intended. So far, so good. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
