Some years ago now, the Supreme Court of The United States handed down a decision which said in part: “It is hardly lack of due process for the government to control that which it also subsidizes,” or words to that effect. In this present post, I feel the need to explore the implications of this Court decision where our present looming political disaster is concerned.

In the politics and economy of today’s America “entitlement” rules the day, and at virtually every level of society. The disconnect between work and access to the necessities of life is now complete.There was a time, that was governed by a completely opposite economic philosophy, The Apostle Paul put it this way: “He that doesn’t work, neither shall he eat.” By the standards of the present day this seems to be absolutely heartless, and yet it is said in the midst of the New Testament narrative, which other wise has mostly to do with Love.

What I would like to do here is to explore the implications of our present direction, independent of any issue of heartlessness.

Food & shelter cost somebody something. Where children are concerned, food & shelter are part of the cost of parenting, and so the children get to eat that which they have not worked for or earned in the usual sense. The love of the parents picks up the tab for the children. This seems to work out pretty well in a state of nature or naturally. Part of the reason is or used to be, because the parents, not the children governed the home. The parents were in charge, not the children. This tends to make for a much more responsible household economy than would otherwise be the case. This is not to ignore the dysfunctional parenting that increasingly plagues what’s left of the American family.

To paraphrase the Supreme Court decision in this context: In the Family unit, where the parents supply, they have a right to control. In short “one man one vote” doesn’t apply to family life. Where family is concerned the children have to grow up and into the right to have a say in family matters – the government of the family.

Perhaps enough said about families, now let’s turn to nations, even the facts of political economy here in America.

With increasing “Entitlement” has come increasing irresponsibility. An ever increasing proportion of the population earns nothing while consuming much. This might be acceptable in the short run under more or less emergency circumstances, but when it becomes a way of life mixed with a way of politics, it makes for an irresponsible electorate, and by now quite probably an irresponsible majority. In short, under this new way of life, government, and politics, “one man one vote” has come to mean in effect irresponsible government. It should be clear by now to anyone still in their right mind, that this is not coming to a good end, and that a bad end will soon be upon us. :-/

There is hardly any question that an irresponsible electorate is a dangerous thing where what’s left of the American Dream or even civilization is concerned. What is becoming increasingly clear is the necessity of determining what constitutes responsibility worthy of the right to vote.

In this same connection, I need to say something about the importance of who is paying to put the food on the table. If the entitled ones are eating food that the government put on the table, that is one thing. If they are second generation or third generation wealth, and their inheritance put the food on the table, that is another matter. In either case the one doing the eating may not be particularly responsible, but in the second instance, at least the transfer of the food is not made at the point of a gun. Rather it is supplied by the economic power of the one who supplied the inheritance rather than the power of the government. One is the power of the dollar given by choice, and the other is the power of a gun.Not so very long ago the right of women to vote in America was not recognized. That was and remains indefensible. The right of children to vote is still not recognized, and below a certain age of maturity this seems to be reasonable, and one consistent with family life. The real question which is forcing itself upon us, and becoming increasingly clear in the present election period is how do we determine the right to vote for a population less and less willing and/or able to pay it’s own way.

Irresponsible government is no less problematic than tyrannical government, and either way history, which used to be taught in school, is shouting at us that it will not be long before the blood in the streets that is already flowing in the Middle East will be flowing here in America as well.

But for the sake of my loved ones, the present direction of American government makes my terminal cancer a real pleasure.

Love!