The Poison of Politics and Parties

Were you aware that our founding father George Washington predicted the dangers of political corruption as a result of partisan divisions?  In his 1796 farewell address, Washington cautioned of the threat to Liberty invoked by political parties who enable the government to take power not granted to it by the people.   He went on to caution that the parties can organize special interest factions and “give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party.”  Such thirst for power has slowly evolved over the years as the very politicians we elect engage such power for self-serving interests or for the benefit of their political affiliation rather than for the benefit of the people and the country they serve.

Have we truly evolved as Washington had foreshadowed in his final adieu?  Almost 219 years since Washington’s farewell address we find that our country continues to debate our state of internal affairs.  As time progresses the longstanding battles between partisan groups seems indefinite, regardless of which party “wins” it is always the public interest that comes in a distant (and silenced) second. 

Vigilance The Price of Liberty embraces the silence and offers to help the public find its voice and enable action for “what you can do today to save America tomorrow".

Income Inequality is a Non Sequitur

Income inequality is a non sequitur in a free society with free markets because the very premise of income inequality is fallacious.  For example, the surface area of the Earth is about 70% water but does this mean there is land inequality on the planet?

In a free and capitalistic system, income inequality is irrelevant because the intrinsic nature of freedom and capitalism is unequal outcomes.  If the dialogue changes toward policies that attack income gaps then a change in the political structure must follow to reduce liberty and capitalism to move to tyranny and collectivism.  In a free market, if a man owns a landscaping company and earns $1 million where the man who pushes the lawnmower gets $8/hour, is this income inequality an issue?  No, if the lawnmower man is free to open his own landscape business.  If the lawnmower guy cannot start a business because of government impediments then that’s a problem.  But if he doesn’t start it because he doesn’t want to then that is, as Milton Friedman said, the freedom to choose.

Government intervention to narrow income inequality is a banner upon which government can gain more power at the expense of our liberty.  The better discussion should be to remove impediments to equal opportunity and free markets.