The Rock Report

The Rock Report. ©
Or: A Dissertation On The Imperative Of Ant Liberation
While There Are Still Some Of Us Left.

Those rights called out in the Constitution, specifically the original Bill of Rights or first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were written in a fashion that they would apply to all People in this country regardless of the quantity of our population. To put it another way they were written without a limiting quantity that would restrict these rights from being applied to all. Although not stated specifically in the Constitution it is unavoidable that laws passed by the Legislature can have the effect of providing the People with Rights as they pertain to such laws that are passed. Even though legislation does not legally create Rights like those called out in the Bill of Rights, such laws do provide something that for all practical purposes must be considered a Right.
In contemporary times a liberal and arrogant Judiciary ( in my opinion ) has given itself the authority to issue and enforce various rights of their own by their liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

If any Rights granted through either the Constitution, the Legislature or the Judiciary are associated with a limiting quantity, it is certain that such a right is impossible to apply to all people. There are such laws currently in existence. The limiting factors in these laws is "money" which is a finite quantity and something that the Government does not posses, it only has control of our tax money. The laws in question are Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and every other social program of which there are so many nobody really knows for sure their exact number.
Keep in mind that money for such programs comes from those who work and have their wages and purchases taxed. When a group of people are given the Right to exist off the taxpayers in whole or in part, the rest must live with a drastically reduced after tax income. The following occurs for those who carry this burden.

1. Their Right and responsibility to live by their own labors is denied or inhibited in favor of others.
2. Their Right to pursue happiness as called out in the Declaration of Independence is denied or inhibited in favor of others.
3. Their Right to pursue the American dream (home ownership) is denied or inhibited in favor of others.
4. The right to see their children advance beyond their own circumstance is denied or inhibited in favor of others.

Although the above stated Rights are not listed in the Bill of Rights, they are as valid as the congressional statement that one has the right to attach him/her self to the tax payers like a leach, and then exist off the life of others, as is the case of welfare and other programs.
In keeping with the analogy of the leach: The host is attacked with out regard for its health or capability to survive such a parasite. Does anybody truly believe that those on Welfare are thoughtful of the possible harm to those families that act as the host body? Do they think about those who work hard so they can send their sons or daughters to college while being held back from that goal by oppressive taxation? Are taxpayers ever asked of their hopes and dreams for themselves or their family’s future and their need to retain as much of their own income as possible in order to fulfill those dreams. Does anybody feel that those members of the Government that support such programs have asked these questions of the taxpayer?

The wife of the current President once asked...“what’s wrong with helping?” She was referring to social programs. The answer is, of course, “Nothing...Helping is a great Thing.” However, forcing others to help against their will by the threat of financial ruin and a long jail sentence can not be justified by anybody with any degree of moral conscience. If this were done by a person against another person it would be called extortion; when done by the Government against the People it is called Legislation. It is admitted that necessary Legislation will be passed that does harm to the People as in taxation itself; However, is it proper to pass a law that harms one group of Americans for the sole purpose of favoring another group even as in some cases a group that may not be American citizens?

It should be noted that the U.S. Government ( or any government ) must create harm in order to give help, since every dollar given as help must first be taken away from somebody else, (i.e. harm). If one dollar has a quantity of help surely the reverse exists and that dollar must have an equal quantity of harm. When given by the Government that dollar helps some person by (x) amount.
When taken by the Government that same dollar harms some other person by (x) amount.
If “help” is considered a positive virtue then “harm” must surely be considered a negative virtue. When a negative and a positive of equal value are added, the result is always zero without exception. If the net result of help/harm is zero, how can any government truly claim that it is helping its citizens when such action must claim an equal amount of harm to others of that governments citizens?

It is a fact of our human nature that a privilege will not go on for long without being abused. eventually an abused privilege will become a lost privilege and the privilege of social programs has been abused far beyond this taxpayer’s toleration.

All of these arguments and more are amplified by the following observations:

1. There were poor people in this country (or any other country for that matter) prior to the concept of social programs. There are poor people now after many decades of such programs.... So what is changed?

2. Countries that are much more socialistic than ours still have their poor or lower class population as well as their upper class elite, despite the precepts of the communist manifesto which assume the end result of Socialist Philosophy is A single class of people. In light of the experiences of Communists countries of late, is it not conceivable that Karl Marx was wrong, and any attempt to control a peoples social conscience is doomed to failure. That by our very nature we will resist or bypass such control?

3. Since the creation of social programs, the number of people who insist that they require them has increased year by year. Trend analysis would predict that these increases will continue until such time that the entire infrastructure of taxing for social programs must collapse. What happens to our society at that point is anybody’s guess. I would suggest though that it is not going to be pretty.

In the period of our history that did not have social programs available everybody was naturally expected to assume personal responsibility for their own lives. Even in the Constitution then as now there is no mention of any government responsibility to care for or pamper to its citizens. Yet with only the charity of the community as a backstop our progenitors managed to live and grow in every way and even cross this continent and settle new land that they could not know before hand would be habitable. In that time accepting responsibility was easy since one had no choice. We can make it easy to accept again and be better for it.

Now that I have spoken out against these programs the opposing side will claim that I must be a very greedy individual. Since no such accusations are raised against the recipients of social programs, I must assume the opposition does not have that opinion of these recipients.
Question:
If I as a taxpayer want to keep as much as I can of the money that I earn.
And:
The recipients want to keep as much as they can of the money that I earn.
Tell me then which one of the two is more greedy? The reluctant giver or the eager taker.

I acknowledge that to avoid a catastrophe these programs will have to be phased out over time (maybe 10 years or sooner) or privatized, as in the case of Social Security, since those on it or soon to be on it are trapped into needing it as their sole source of income. It would require thirty to forty years to revert to a self invested retirement income system.
We in our foolishness have become an entire society of 260 million grasshoppers.
“My god. what have we done to ourselves?"
The decision to change must be made soon to insure that our economy is strong enough for us to support both our own elderly and the local (and voluntary) charities that must fill the void for the truly needy among us. Those being a small percentage of those who are now on subsistence, just as charities have done in times past.

In review please ask yourself if you agree or disagree with the points raised in this text.

1. That extortion by a government against a percentage of the People for the purpose of creating forced charity can not be justified.

2. That legislated Rights given to only some of the people and denied to the rest must have the effect of denying still other Rights for those who pay in order to support such legislation and should not be permitted in a country that so, proudly calls itself “Free”.

3. That no one has the right to live off others not by family ties morally responsible for them. Also that needing charity is human, however demanding charity is criminal.

4. That historically such programs have not been necessary.
Also agree that life was indeed different in the past than it is now (in the past life was harder).

5. That socialist policies have failed in other countries and if current expansion trends continue must with out doubt fail in this country with catastrophic results. A quote from David Brenkly of “This Week With David Brenkly” ABC television .... “Every socialist country in the world is in trouble”, monetarily.

6. That before the government can help anybody it must first harm somebody else.

7. That it is proper for a taxpayer to desire to retain as much as possible of this own earnings. That they may support his/her future and that of his/her family and the goals, dreams and expectations for that future. Also that such goals are his/her responsibility alone.

Conclusion.

So now you have read my report... thanks.
If you agree with it pass it around for comment by others.
If you disagree with it then write your own damm report and submit it for comment.
Submitted for your review by.
Mr. Eric (Rock) Andersen
A citizen 0f the USA.
Thus given the Right to have and express an opinion.
Also:
A taxpayer of the USA.
Thus given the Right to have and express an attitude.

P.S. One last visit to the leach analogy if you will permit me.
It is not uncommon in nature for a parasite’s life functions to be eventually lethal to the host.