Tuesday, August 02, 2005

PP Campaign Ad 2008 [More Pedantic Politics]

My next PedPol installment will be on the subject of drugs and narcotics. University life has been rather time-consuming, so blogging has been sporadic.

If I had to design a brief speech for a candidate with my sympathies, it would go something like what follows below. The idea of the speech is to give something that, far from being a treatise, is "easy listening" while getting home the broad brushstrokes in appealing language. I'm trying to visualize this as a 5-minute opening statement or a general sort of speech. One might find that I have latent speechwriting abilities; another might think that I should stick with statistics and probability! Without further ado, here we go...

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

Thank you for the introduction.

My candidacy is about the following question: do you believe that government can run your life better than you can run your life?

I beg the audience to consider this question in a few specific instances.

First, do you think that you can do a better job with your money than government? Should you be forced to pay into social security, a payment that goes not towards you but to other people who are presently on the collection end of it?

Second, do you think that, in lieu of the excessive taxation at the state and federal levels, you can spend your money better than politicians?

Third, do you want government and bureacracy involved in your health care decisions, where the type of treatment you receive is the government's business?

Fourth is for business owners or for those in commerce: do you want government telling you that you have to, say, build walkways for disabled people, that you have to spend your profits OSHA-proofing your workplace, that you have to have a certain hiring practice and ideology, all while a sizable portion of would-be profits go to the government?

Fifth and finally, do you believe the words private property and personal responsibility mean what the words taken at face value mean?

Please consider those questions carefully.

My contention is that my Republican and Democratic opponents have come down firmly on the same side of the question, despite their verbal denials.

That side is the side of expanding the role of government in your life.

For example, my opponents talk about "saving" or "reforming" social security. But observe that they never ask the real questions, such as whether it is just for you to have your money taken by the government to support other people about whom you know nothing. They never ask whether, just possibly, people can do wiser things with their money than letting politicians have control over it, especially when politicians enjoy nothing more than spending money they did not earn to win praise for themselves.

And the same goes with taxation. My opponents argue over a few percent here and there, but, again, the real question isn't asked, and that question is whether politicians and government have any moral right to tax your income in the first place. As a consequence, you are often viewed as children upon whom paternalistic politicians bestow the money of other people, and your wallets are viewed as funds-to-be-had to redistribute to other people.

I could continue along this vein, but let us turn to where I stand.

Unlike my opponents, my views and votes will be done keeping in mind that men prefer control over their own activities to unaccountable interference in their lives.

I will vote against any new taxes and tax increases, and I will work to eliminate or reduce whatever taxes exist.

I will let people opt out of social security if they feel they can do a better job.

I will stand for the rights of businesses to honestly make money in any way they please, and I will do whatever I can to ensure that businesses may hire whomever they wish however they wish. If I can use my vote in any way to deregulate and get the government gum out of business' gears, I shall do so most eagerly.

But at the same time I will not let businesses that cannot compete in the market make a claim on your money and resources. Those of you in the audience cannot claim the money of others, and nor should businesses that cannot compete. I will not let any lobbyist persuade me that your money should subsidize those businesses.

Let us once again turn to my Republican and Democratic opponents.

Both of them, as well as their parties, want you to pay for the health care of complete strangers, some of whom you may very well dislike. And they'll try to win your votes by promising you that "somebody else" will pay. And when they talk to other people, you then become the "somebody else"!

They really don't think highly of you when it comes to believing that you know how best to run your life. They think you're children, needing the loving government nanny to arrange medical matters for you, often more efficiently and more costly than you could do so yourselves.

Make no mistake about it, we are firmly on the road to socialized medicine, and both of my opponents and their parties deny this with a straight face.

But, in our supposedly free society, one of the consequences of freedom is that we are responsible for ourselves and our own choices. Did our own parents not teach us to be responsible for ourselves as we grew up?

Think about a society where you don't have to work until the middle portion of the year to pay off your governmental obligations, where instead you keep the fruits of your labors instead of having publicity-loving politicians spending your money to buy votes!

Think about a society that really does think you're free individuals who can think for themselves and make better choices more suited for your needs than politicians who have shown time and time again that they will force you to subsidize a plan that amounts to nothing more than bribing a group with your money!

Think about a society where your business can conduct peaceful commerce without the threat of politicians telling you how to run your business while expecting a significant proportion of your revenue!

These are just some of the hallmarks of a mature and free society.

And my opponents and their parties will doubtless claim to be in favor of a free society.

But are you really free in an economic sense? Are you free to do honest business as you please?

Next, my opponents will justify taking and spending your money on others, claiming the label of "compassionate" for themselves and their parties.

But is it really compassion when you are forced to subsidize other people, businesses, groups, ideologies, and so on? Is it really compassionate to encourage groups and blocs of people to expect other people (such as yourselves) to pay for them?

Remember, both my opponents believe that you have some obligation to fund their visions of utopia --- visions I might add that always have them running things from positions by which they can interfere with every facet of your lives! Please recall that this is a guiding principle behind socialism and communism, two things that our country claims to oppose!

On the other hand, I want you to have more power over your own lives, and my entire voting record, if elected, will consist of "sticking it" to big government and the social engineers who view themselves as the anointed elites who have a right to control you, your lives, and your money.

Keep your money.

Do business as you see fit.

Get your medical care and tell Big Government to mind its own business.

Take control of your lives back from the Republican and Democratic social engineers who themselves suffer no loss nor harm when their latest "compassionate" scheme for "equality" and "utopia," like all government schemes, blows up in their face.

Please, work with me in upholding freedom and personal responsibility. The easiest first step is to support me at the ballot box and to support others who, like me, believe in your common sense over Big Government. I humbly ask for your votes on the day of the election.

Thank you for your time and attention.

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

Typical anti-statist boilerplate or an effective little speech for those who are not completely hostile to my libertarian [note the lowercase, not uppercase "l" please!] views?

I blog, you decide.

Oh well, it was an interesting experiment, and it kept me from that darn-fangled little poker program that has eaten up more computer time than I care to admit. Now, at this bedtime hour, it is time to review participle forms for my self-imposed semi-annual NT Greek review [seriously]. I hope the little made-up speech is more interesting than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-memorizing the forms of the perfect passive participle!

5 Comments:

Blogger centuri0n said...

Long-winded, atheist libertarian scum.

Objectivist.

John-Galtite.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:26:00 AM  
Blogger Rhology said...

It all sounds great, but the same lost and fallen people that are in gov't are in business as well. Can't trust business a whole lot more than business owners, though it is a fair point that "not a whole lot" doesn't mean "not at all more."

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:30:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Rho --- the matter isn't that business people are on a higher moral plane than gov't officials.

The matter instead is that if you don't like a business, you can not deal with it, at least, usually.

On the other hand, you are forced to deal with the gov't.

And when government screws up, it suffers no consequences. Messed up education? Answer: more money. Messed up social security: more money. Etc.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:33:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Frank: an OBJECTIVIST?!?!

Ooooof.....I'm going to have a multi-hankie cry and write all about my hurt feelings in my Precious Moments diary!

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:34:00 PM  
Blogger Rhology said...

Good point.

Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home