Liberalism/Socialism is based on a philosophy of coveting:
To “covet” verb (used with object)
to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: “to covetanother’sproperty”.
I am disappointed with the Conservative Party's inability to point this out. I am further disappointed that the Conservative party of Canada hasfree marketand limited government principles… yet under their governance, program spending and debt went up: dramatically. Thus, the Conservative party of Canada is operating in acts of coveting, despite a core philosophy that prohibits coveting and instead firmly believes in the rewards of hard work and limited government. This is to be a core 'c' conservative value: respect of personal property.
It has to be one of the two. Either it is, or it is not within the jurisdiction of the government to create all these multi-billion dollar programs to run our lives. If itISwithin their jurisdiction, then I am wrong with my claim that liberalism/socialism is based on a philosophy of coveting. We can end this blog entry here. If it isNOTwithin their jurisdiction to create these programs (as I have strongly argued) … if it isNOTwithin their jurisdiction to spend 30-55% of what each individual earns, then indeed their core beliefs are based on coveting. This is clearly because they are wrongfully wanting... and defiantly without due regard.
The refusal to define the government’s jurisdiction and humbly operate within those boundaries has created the reality we live in. A government that is stepping beyond its realm (um… ahh....er.... and creating loads of debt...).
We have yet to hear a logical argument for the enlargement of debt driven government programs that assume responsibility in jurisdictions that many of us strongly believe are the family’s (child care, etc). My oh my...does such an argument exist?
More disappointing then the core philosophy of liberalism/socialism is the small 'c' conservative response; ignorance and in-action. We remain clueless, afraid, timid and passive to respond to the obvious erosion of our responsibilities and loss of hard earned money to enlarge the spend-a-holic socialist-style government. We foolishly place a higher weight on being friendly and polite then we do being compassionate and confident.
Action points: If you are left leaning, I encourage you to define the government’s jurisdiction, responsibilities and consequently their realm of authority. Then explain, in your words, the 'why'. Why is this right? What makes these areas legitimate areas for them to allocate the spending into?
If you are 'right leaning', I hope this note encouraged you to step up your game and think through your position. Compassion and confidence are the proper responses to our argument for limited government.
Here is an example of being confident and compassionate. (My personal view which I believe I live out every day):
Friends, the act of going into massive personal debt for non-essential items is a form of bondage. Just interview the flow of people who go in and out of money mart. They will tell you. The government going into debt for non-essential spending is equally a form of bondage.
The borrower is a slave to the lender. Bondage is bad and serves no-one. The same 'type' or 'form' of bondage government holds themselves under (with the non-essential debt driven programs) is the SAME type of bondage many of it's very citizens are held under by becoming dependant on such programs (again: non-essential). We covet, or wrongfully want, when we seek to take what is not ours. By spending beyond jurisdiction, we are spending where we do not have ownership, rights or authority to spend. Just because a government has 'power' to create a law does not mean it is inherently right. A compassionate and confident response is to articulate this position and counter with what we are doing to put less of a strain on government services. Rise up in confidence friends. Help yourself and those in need. Discuss, debate and act. Serve. Bring change to hearts and minds through loving and serving! This will put less of a strain on government services and thus we LIVE out of our responsibility to help others. Our lived out position becomes a powerful lifestyle argument for limited government.
We ought not to be so afraid to admit our position and demonstrate (in action and deed) the accuracy of our claims.