Two Americas? Yes, but not the two some see

I was forwarded an email yesterday which I responded to, but I want to respond here as well.  It is about "The Two Americas"

THE TWO AMERICAS

****************************

By Bob Lonsberry

Email:  Bob@Lonsberry.com

Call:  (585) 222-1180

On air:  8:30am - 12pm

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, 

a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM , 

said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

*************************************************************
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

So, I responded:

He missed the mark.

Yes, there are "dos and don'ts", but there are a lot of things that shouldn't be done. Doing them isn't right. If your "duty as Americans" includes you supporting aggression or theft, you shouldn't do your "duty". If the "law" is wrong, you are wrong to obey it. The best way to "contribute to society" is to live without theft or aggression and respect the liberty of every other person to do whatever doesn't violate anyone else, even if you hate what they choose to do. Your one and ONLY "civic responsibility" is to respect and promote rightful liberty. The Democrats have not cornered the market as the "political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office... that loves power more than it loves its country"- Republicans are just as guilty.

"That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you." Or Bush. Or the next president/congresscritter/whoever. It doesn't matter if the theft is called Medicaid, SSDI, "National Security", farm subsidies, INS, etc. If you are taking money from those who earned it, and giving it to those who didn't- and that includes anyone working for any government that I did not consent to finance doing anything I didn't explicitly ask them to do on my behalf- you are rationalizing thievery.

"It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values..." You mean like Jefferson's "Rightful Liberty"?

"The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, 'The harder you work, the more you get.'" Unless you are working hard at something that American Christian Sharia Law has decided you shouldn't do. Such as grow and sell certain plants. Or rent your body. Or open a bar without government permission and meddling oversight. Or anything without all that red tape, regulation, and "taxation".

"What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow." Agreed. Just like the different flavor of socialism offered by the Republicans.

So, yes, there are two Americas- two worlds, really. It's not the "haves and have nots" or the "dos and don'ts". It's not the "liberals/progressives and the conservatives" or the "Democrats and Republicans". It is those who seek the power (and believe- falsely- they have the "authority") to control the non-coercive, non-thieving lives of others and those who don't. Robert A. Heinlein may have said it best: "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I stand with Liberty. Even when it's inconvenient.

In other words, the advocacy presented in the email is that of the typical "conservative" socialist.  The collective reigns supreme when its "needs" conflict with the needs of the individual.  A rather disgusting, cowardly world-view, if you ask me.

I realize there were a great many more points I could have addressed.  But, I was needing to hit the road for another project which I will present to you in a day or two- or a few.

Yes, I did CC the author, along with the guy who forwarded the email, in my response. I suppose I'll see if he responds.

.