Liberty Or Servitude: Choose Wisely

By: Rosemary Dewar
There are many issues of importance concerning the woes of local communities. Instead of looking inward for a solution, the choice to petition the federal government is often pursued. Reaching out for a federal government subsidy should only be considered an absolute, last resort. Unfortunately, it seems to be a default setting for those who manage city and state regulations in order to pacify their constituents. Resolutions are rarely reached when community limitations continue to mount. Should travailing communities want lasting relief, it is best that they find strength to be with a neighbor, while maintaining moral principles as well as responsiveness toward another.

The federal government was never intended to intertwine itself with the states’ common functions. States were to govern themselves to the point of nearly absolute independence. Any cooperation with the federal government was largely limited to self-defense.

When the Founding Fathers used the word “welfare,” they did not mean a subsidy funded by national government. Today many citizens and state representatives have severely corrupted the original meaning of the word “welfare” to the point that they have contributed to the unstable conditions found in their communities. Domestic overcrowding combined with high government funding consistently results in the increase of : single-parent families, low labor participation, substandard education, inferior urban infrastructure, increased mortality rates, and exponential growth of crime. Current state representatives have proven that they do not trust their constituents to govern their own communities; so much so that they have chosen to make sure they will not be able to.

Founding Father James Madison advised the division between the sovereignty for states, the federal government, and its citizens. He was well aware that “the cabals of the few” were as much a threat as an over-eager governing body. In the anticipation that citizens would be so enamored with liberty, Madison hoped that “the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit than the most diffusive and established character.” No matter which side of the aisle one currently analyzes, this concept is foreign, except to an honorable few.

It was Thomas Jefferson who stated, “I prefer dangerous freedom over quiet servitude.”

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that freedom and deliverance from injustice are given in such a way that it is truly impossible for mankind to strip it away from each other permanently. A legislative title will not, and cannot alter that. The only way to preserve it is to do one’s part. Take responsibility, and be accountable.

No one is going to give any mind to what someone else cares for until it is proven valuable. Once an individual creates a solution that makes other people’s lives more bearable, it benefits the individual and the surrounding community. This contributes to the overall welfare of society.

Was the government needed? No.

Should the government get involved? Not if it can be avoided.

Individual liberty is self-determined. Should one be persuasive enough to convince others to benefit from another’s loss of liberty, they are no better than those who believed that bondage is acceptable. Whether the subject is healthcare, education, infrastructure, and/or communal aid, any measure of liberty lost is bartering for a partnership with chaos.

Should a community be determined to achieve self-sustained advancement, it is imperative that it looks inward. Want to witness charity, morality, justice, and revitalization? Get a mirror.

The only non-metaphysical obstacle standing in the way suffering societies is its citizens. Most neighbors are not foes. Most carry the same hopes and fears as the next neighbor. One is usually aware of one’s own needs, which are also frequently shared by one’s neighbors. It is an individual’s responsibility to care for their neighbor as well as their brother. Many, if not all, social ills can be addressed and resolved by a small contingent of people who care about the same issue. And, it can be accomplished without any assistance from a mayor, a state representative, or a president.

To bog down the governmental system with every little complaint without considering what the individual can accomplish, robs each person of a measure of liberty. This consistent carelessness will lead to the disintegration of care and justice.
By: Rosemary Dewar