linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
January 2022
Written by Linda S Brooks
Though it was Aristotle who made the observation that man is rational and therefore capable of ruling over himself, it was Adam Smith (1723-1790), first Economic Philosopher of the 18th Century, who gave feet to that belief formally described in his thesis “The Wealth of the Nations” wherein the motto of capitalism was born referred to as the “Invisible Hand of the Market” representing the automatic functional attribute of consumerism among mankind assuming they are a free society including all primary resources that will be available for their use; therefore, accordingly a democratic form of government is required since freedom is the central objective of society.
During the European feudal and monarchical period , specifically, resources were controlled and so was labor; thus, it was the elites who dictated resource ownership and allocation and their caste system determined ones lively hood. Wealth was completely funneled into the hands of the aristocrats and monarch’s; not available to the public at large. In this these elites added to their image the idea of devine appointment to take care of the peasants including the control of money; thereby, justifying to the church, who made the accumulation of wealth evil, that they were exempt from the curse associated with money. Thus, Europeans to this day are Collectivists; on the other hand, Americans are individualist which is part of the Judean-Christian faith. It took such people as Adam Smith one-hundred years to educate the elites along with religion before these resources were released for public consumption.
This brief description is what will establish what side of the fence any one country’s political-economic system will come to rest. The two will build different systems: Collectivism will institutionalize Socialism and Individualism will establish a free society that automatically produces capitalism and democratic order. Regarding religion, going directly to the point, on the American currency is the phrase “In God weTrust” that is a product of individualism taught by the Judeo-Christian faith. The question then becomes one of a significant change in political culture expressed thru values by a society who now addresses the question— in what will we trust— inviting an answer that clearly points to the only available alternative to faith: that is government.
Assuming I am describing the US, it cannot be denied that this change is occurring. For instance, as these cultural attributes begin to be supplanted by more of a collectivist nature that trusts in an elite, we will see functional attributes of government change in response most dramatically shifting responsibilities in its direction that will require the forfeiture of freedom. However, can it be that social demands are a response, themselves, to something the government is doing; sort of like trying figure out what came first: the chicken or the egg. But wait, the US is a democracy which means the people rule thru elections in which policy is chosen and representatives, claiming to support those policies, agree with them. I am a candidate, myself in a first time experience, that has to convey to the voting public what I believe in and will support so that they can choose whom they want as their representative. I really will not entertain that I can or will allow myself to be elected to represent policies significantly different from my own; indeed that is why our elected officials come from within our own districts from amongst the people where we like to live. We identify with them and they with us; of course within reason with the idea of balance and free choice.
Therefore, the people have elected those who run the government; so the responsibility for change has to be fostered by the voting public; assuming the voting process is not frustrated. However, what if the government has done something that now forces a change whether we want it or not? I suggest what could cause that delimma is either war or the loss of natural resources, that has supported our wealth for so long, pushing the US toward a dependancy status on the resources of other countries and possible into a War Economy that we now cannot escape from.
Aside from the loss of natural resources, it is War that will force change because War is expensive with the capacity to bankrupt as did all of Europe at the end of WWII that had followed WWI by only twenty-one years. What is raising alarm as the US National Debt is now within a hair of thirty-trillion dollars, is rising constraint to the ability to produce, in terms of natural, human and capital resources; is also becoming apparent; for instance, since the pandemic the US is short of labor, inflation has kicked in rising a demand for higher wages, and socialism is developing as a new foreign population is being drawn into the country most likely linked to our aging society. These constraints have the potential to force the establishment of an authoritarian state when no solution to bankruptcy is in view.
Political Scientist have long said, that when and if the US falls it will be like going over a cliff all of a sudden not expecting the bottom to fall out from under us. Perhaps, it is time to demand that our government stop chasing one war after the other with no regard for the rule of the people let alone its well being. When did the American people approve that the US could become a global police force? When did the American people approve of its government to perform for the sake of the EU or of the UN or to give office to South American elitism by taking their unwanted at our expense? The purse for War is held by the House of Representatives and with the War Powers Resolution; War cannot be pursued without financial backing so the House has an ace it can play against any hawks. Of those Representatives we have elected; I don’t remember War being on any candidates platform, except that of Barack Obama who said we are going back into Afghanistan again, and now with the current administration, again back to Afghanistan; how many times are we going back? You know, I have an emphasis in Middle East Politics under my BA in Political Science and have warned numerous times that economic warfare is a strength of the Arab Terrorist; as matter of fact, manipulation is a China card, as well. I think our enemy is a sly fox, whether powerful or not, and our leadership has taken the position that our resources are unchallengeable; but I suggest it depends on how long we are going to War. Now the US is daring a War with Russia; to what benefit to the US? This is my position, the American are a peace loving people whose primary pursuit is happiness but ready to fight for its own territory; but not for every body else.
Copyright © 2021 POLITICS and OTHER ANOMALIES with Linda S Brooks. - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder