You are on page 1of 4

The United States vs.

America… A Discussion of Americanism
It’s time, Liberals, to boldly admit your anti -Americanism! By Jason W. Hinson To my fellow Americans: America is not simply a country with boarders and citizens and laws; it’s a fundamental principle about the basis of a society and the resulting purpose of its government. That principle is founded on a belief in personal liberty that is an innate part of every human being – our creator endows us with it. Because of that inherent and equal liberty we share, the principles of Americanism claim that the proper role of a government established by humanity is to protect those freedoms. If these words seem odd to you or you doubt their truth, then you don’t understand America. According to Americanism, we have a shared responsibility that government must be in place to enforce. That is, according to the principles of America, it is justified for government to force you to support and uphold one particular shared responsibility: ensuring the innate rights of your fellow citizens are equally and justly protected. One must understand the logical conclusion of that statement: if government attempts to enforce any other “shared responsibility” than the protection of our inherent rights, then government must violate the principles of America. If you don’t see the logic behind that statement, let me lend a hand: For government to operate, by definition it must infringe on personal liberties. It must have funds to operate, and it collects those funds through involuntary taxation—taking money legitimately owned by its citizens. It must pass laws and regulations, and such enactments intrinsically limit personal freedom. When government acts, it must trespass on the personal liberties of its citizens due to the inherent nature of its existence. However, if government uses every tax dollar it collects and every law it enacts and enforces in order to equally and justly protect fundamental liberties that would have otherwise been unjustly violated, then – and only then – can it justify its infringement on other personal liberties while still upholding the principles of Americanism. If government is to uphold American principles even though on one hand its nature infringes upon those principles, then it must tip the scales by dedicating every aspect of its existence to enforcing that principle where it would be unjustly violated without government’s intervention. As soon as government takes on any other fundamental role or enforces any other claim of a shared responsibility, it violates the fundamental principles of America. But what are the personal liberties – the rights – that Americanism directs government to protect? Americanism does not allow us to answer that question at our whim. According to its principles, our creator endows us with the fundamental

rights that we must collectively protect via government. They are innate parts of our humanity. We have them because we exist as human beings. This means that no one else must act in order for any of our fundamental rights to be realized or fulfilled. We have them as we are. Rationally, we must conclude that the rights to which we refer involve our free will – our ability to think and act as independent beings, to control our bodies as we wish, and to live our lives as we see fit. These are our fundamental liberties, and we have the right to use those liberties to the extent that we do not unjustly violate the same liberties others equally posses. America is based on the principle that government is established to fulfill our collective responsibility by justly and equally protecting these fundamental liberties. Although the role of government can be simply stated, have no doubt – fulfilling its purpose is not simple. Keeping the scales tipped in the right direction is very complex, and laws must be carefully considered to gauge whether their enactment will ultimately serve to protect fundamental liberty as our founding principle demands. However, that is the question we must ask in this country when considering the role of our government. In this respect, America is unlike other nations. It is supposed to be different. Its government is not intended to simply follow the will of the majority or fundamentally provide its citizens with basic necessities or inherently develop practical means of improving our collective quality of life. Its job, though complex, is to protect the fundamental liberties of each of its citizens equally. It is then the job of its citizenry to pursue happiness through the use of individual liberty. It’s our role – our responsibility – to provide for our basic needs, to better ourselves, to seek happiness, to follow our dreams, to live our lives as we see fit. Asking government in our country to take a fundamental role in those respects is a violation of American principles. The role of our government is intentionally limited because if it attempts to do more with the powers we are collectively constrained to provide it, it will unjustly infringe on the rights of its citizens and violate the founding principles of our nation – the principles of Americanism. How many Americans today truly respect this principle? Are we still a nation based on these fundamental ideas? Is the United States of America still America? I fear that Americanism is simply disappearing from our land. Schools do not instill our children with an understanding of and deep appreciation for these basic American principles. Politicians make arguments for or against laws and regulations based on what they claim will provide the most benefit to various groups of people in our society. Groups of citizens are convinced through class warfare and envy to disregard the fundamental liberties of ownership for those who have supposedly achieved enough. People are persuaded to see areas of personal responsibility in life as fundamental rights and to view government not as a protector of personal liberty but as a provider of general services.

Our government’s power has been constantly expanded in this regard. While, as stated earlier, protecting individual liberties is a complex job and can cause complex laws as a result, too often the extent and complexity of our laws is a result of provisions and influences that are completely divorced from the intended purpose of American government. Politicians develop laws and people develop their attitudes toward laws starting from a different mindset than that called for by Americanism. People see the acts of government in other countries and don’t juxtapose them against American principles. They don’t see a vital need to protect the moral code of liberty in America by limiting government’s power. Instead they think, if it “works” for them, then our government should do it too. Even discounting the argument that such expansions of government don’t usually “work” in the long run, the thoughts themselves betray a mindset that is no longer focused on the fundamental principles of American society. Perhaps the most sweeping example of this in recent memory is the formally named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” more commonly referred to as Obamacare. I write this in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that, among other things, ruled that the individual mandate (the requirement for individual citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS) was in fact a lawful tax. The court ostensibly made this ruling based on a clinical understanding of our Constitution and the powers it invests in the Federal Government. Even under those conditions, four of the nine judges found the law to be wholly unconstitutional (“invalid in its entirety”). Although the court may not be free to do so, I ask you to consider the law based purely on our fundamental principles. It is reasonable to argue that our government should justly regulate the health care industry to ensure individuals are not unfairly coerced by health concerns into unwarranted decisions and actions they would not otherwise freely take. However, the law in question, and particularly, the individual mandate, clearly oversteps this purpose by coercing individuals – as an aspect of citizenship – into purchasing a private commodity. This mandate does not attempt to balance the scales of government power by protecting individual liberty as its ultimate goal. It was not designed with that goal in mind. Its supporters don’t call for protection of individual liberty; they call for healthcare benefits as if they were a fundamental right rather than an individual responsibility. They disregard – or, at best, distort – our founding principles. Their arguments, when fully and carefully considered, are fundamentally anti-American. My ultimate wish in this discussion is that many of my fellow citizens will step back, take a look at the big picture, and re-embrace Americanism. For those who do not agree with the arguments made, I desperately call for intellectual honesty – I plead with you to embrace your opposition to the fundamental principles on which America was founded and honestly express it. Say it out loud. You do believe government should be more than Americanism limits it to be. You believe that there are collective responsibilities we share that must be upheld, by force if necessary,

though the actions of government. You argue that government must violate certain individual liberties not simply to provide just and equal protection of all liberties, but also to perform other societal roles that are more important to you than individual freedom. Perhaps you even believe that individual liberty is not paramount to the foundation of a society – that other collectivist principles form a more constructive framework. In any of these cases, it is time to embrace the reality of your political principles and state the claim clearly: you don’t believe in the absolute requirements of Americanism. You want the United States, as a nation, to profoundly change and move away from its founding American principles. As a firm citizen of the United States, you are, nonetheless, fundamentally anti-American, and you should embrace it and be frank about it. Such honesty and forthrightness would plainly delineate the lines of discussion in this country. A clear choice between two blatant statements would be set forth for all to hear. You can either boldly embrace the founding principles of our country, endeavoring to limit the power of government to that which is absolutely necessary to justly and equally protect individual liberty, or you can clearly and brazenly abandon those principles with a candid claim that we should no longer be bound to Americanism but empower our government to do whatever we believe is best for the working of our society whether or not it constitutes a clear violation of some individual liberties. It’s time to be absolutely clear about the choices we are making and boldly declare them. As for me, I am an American who still proudly believes in Americanism! What about you?