Solutions Always Start at Home

What personal life decisions do you NOT want to make?
What responsibilities do you NOT want to have?
What services do you NOT place any value on?
Which neighbors do you NOT want to help?
Which neighbors do you WANT to discriminate against?
Which neighbors do you WANT to give preferential treatment over you?
Which neighbors KNOW BETTER than you on how you should lead your life?

These questions must be asked and they must be PERSONAL. How else can we understand to the extent we need government. The problem is, many people do not answer the questions for themselves, but they answer them for other people. For example, "I would never discriminate against my neighbors, but "those people" discriminate." Or, "none of my neighbors should have a controlled advantage over me, but "WE" must help "those people" to get ahead." Or, "I know what is best for me, but "WE" need to help "those people" because they do can not help themselves."

The problem today is those that believe in social collectivism have taken the "I" out of the debate. They have attempted to make "I" a dirty word. "I" is selfish, greedy, unpatriotic. However, "I" is the only way we can help people understand the evil of social collectivism. Once the argument is changed from I to "them" or "we", it defers responsibility away from the individual so it is easier to discriminate, to give away power, to give up liberty.

When the questions become personal and about people you know, it becomes clearer about our personal responsibilities, our desire for liberty, and our need to be involved. Who wants to give up any of their own decision making? Who wants to avoid responsibility? Who truly places no value on services? Who thinks their neighbor is better equipped to run their own life than them self?

Please someone come forward and prove me wrong and say, "I do not want to decide what I eat, where I send my children to school, what car I buy." Or, "I want to discriminate against my neighbor, I know better how to run their life."

Yet, this is exactly what we are saying, by relinquishing power to government to allow others to control our lives and tell us who gets preferential treatment, who gets unfair burdens, what service are more important than others to us, and what we can and can not do with our lives.

The next time someone argues about the need for collective compassion, responsibility, or "improving" a system, turn the argument to a very personal one, by asking the questions above.

On the Health Care Reform bill ask, "should your neighbor decide your cancer treatment, or should you?" Should your younger neighbor have more availability to health care then you because of their social value?" The social collectivist might think they are smart by responding, "what if you neighbor is richer, should they have more health care available to them?" The answer is simple, "so then YOU DO WANT SAY OVER YOUR NEIGHBORS PERSONAL DECISIONS!" Therefore, you then DO WANT to give up YOUR right to personal health care decision because you want to for others.

The Key is once you admit wanting a say in other peoples lives, you are giving up a say in your own. The solution always starts at HOME.