Our Government should foster an environment that protects and allows us to enjoy our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to their fullest. Unfortunately, actions speak otherwise; they have instead chosen to become an institution that prefers to govern with a heavy hand. This is being facilitated by the slow, methodical confiscation of our freedoms and liberties which are then used to expand their dominion. Our politicians oppose acknowledging that natural rights exist because recognizing these inalienable rights serve to undermine their coveted agenda of control, instead they prefer to believe that such rights are enacted by legislation thus subject to rescission or modification at will. They would much rather structure a society resembling a metaphorical “zoo” so that our lives can be completely managed and regulated to conform to the will of Government. After all, our politicians believe themselves to be of superior intelligence versus the aggregate, thus undoubtedly concluding that our existence should be administered much like a chimpanzee in a zoo. The important question for our society to resolve is do we favor a dictated existence from our Government that promises the illusion of equal results to everyone, or do we strongly reject it knowing it can not be delivered despite the tremendous cost to our freedom and ultimately our society? The answer will certainly present itself going forward, but so far it appears that “Welcome to the Zoo” seems appropriate.

As human beings we want to believe that health care is a right simply to demonstrate that we are creatures of compassion with a properly functioning moral compass. It would seem less than civilized to not consider health care to be an entitlement, but the truth is that such care must be provided by other citizens that also have rights and freedoms that must be respected. Simply transferring a right from one person to another is not doing anything for our society, nor will it ever. We humans have a great capacity to help others if it remains our choice to do so, but that becomes very limited once it is forced upon us. All of us have a right to pursue quality health care, but not at the expense of our fellow citizens. Adding this perspective to the dialogue paints a more comprehensive picture and accordingly it becomes obvious that health care can not be a right because it violates the rights of another; it should be viewed as a privilege to be “pursued” regardless of how uncaring or objectionable that may sound. It is an imperfect world that we live in and there is a cost to everything that must be paid, so it stands to reason that consumers should compensate providers for any goods or services they receive and not expect others to be obligated. Subscribing to this tried and true practice ensures that everyone’s rights remain intact thereby alleviating this whole debate.

America had better awaken to this picture for what it truly is and realize that we are being subordinated in importance to our politician’s self-centeredness. We are a distant thought in their minds, nothing more than an electorate to be manipulated in order to attain and retain political office. Once attained, it is all about them from that point on. This will continue until the day Americans quit bickering among ourselves over our differences and turn our full attention on them to start demanding solutions and accountability. Politicians like nothing more than the voters to be at odds with one another because a divided people is a conquered people, and it gives them openings to begin pointing fingers and propagating blame thus keeping the focus off of their own incompetence and exploitations. If we can not find enough common ground as Americans to come together and focus our energies on the insanity that is our Government, then we had better be prepared for the outcome of that inaction. Our Government has become a cancer that is eating this nation from the inside, and at some point it will severely weaken and overwhelm us. Regardless of how people may classify themselves in our society, we are all going to suffer from a declining nation as our politicians would rather have power and control over a dying nation than no such power over a prosperous one.

All of our daily lives are heavily connected with the internet whether we are surfing for information or conducting business, and it is this fact that the Government will use to create the need for their oversight so they can extend their span of control. The program being advertised is the necessity to create a department, answerable only to the President, that protects Government and private computer systems from cyber attacks. The result of this would empower the Government to dictate security protocols on private industry, and have full control over their network usage during times of “threat” as determined solely by them. Even if a private company had necessary protections installed locally, they could suffer a shutdown of service by the Government since others may not have sufficient protection. The nagging question that comes to mind is why the Government feels the need to provide protection for private networks and not just concentrate on securing their own systems. This is what creates suspicion regarding their intentions with this initiative, and the answer likely lies in their relentless quest to gain more control of our everyday lives.

There is not only the control of the network at issue, but also the possibility the Government will use this as a tool to invade the privacy of people at its whim. This concept can easily be extended further to include the prospect of retribution being exercised with denial of internet service for any entity or person that opposes the Government with actions or their voice. The Administration is attempting to remove any doubt of governmental control or transgression on its citizens in announcing this program. Obama is carefully outlining that his Administration will not dictate security standards to the private sector, and they absolutely will not participate in monitoring private networks or internet traffic, vowing to preserve the privacy we expect as Americans. The overriding stated goal is the commitment to an open and free internet. Just hearing these objectives being expressed from a politician should provide the uneasy feeling that in fact the opposite will be the reality. Knowing that our Government’s true loyalty lies in its own best interest, these statements should be viewed with skepticism and should not be trusted, and remember that this power will be absolute and answerable only to the President. Time will tell if these thoughts prove to be misguided, but my bet is that we in the future will wonder how we let this one by us.

On the other side, we have the ones that believe Government is the answer, being an all-inclusive and benevolent institution that will take care of its people, in fact, have an obligation for that care. They possess a misguided attitude that the Government’s purpose is to solve all their challenges in life and they do not realize or care that this is not possible unless resources are confiscated from another. Individual rights and responsibilities are not important to this faction as they see themselves being in the care of a paternal Government of a rich nation, thus relying on it for their safekeeping and also to resolve their hardships. These beliefs are completely opposed to the underpinnings that built this country in general since its founding, yet it appears that this mind-set is on the rise in our nation. We seem to be pushing the conversion of our Government to the same collectivist dogma as many other nations around the world as if it has been proven successful.

One of these two philosophical camps is going to prevail as we move into the future, and it sure appears obvious which is predominant at this time. We really need to question whether we should reject our historical model of governing that has been unmatched in prosperity so that we can emulate the rest of the world. The prevailing outcome will permanently shape this nation going forward and present the true character of Americans, do we continue to lead by example or fade back into obscurity and reduced living standards? Hopefully, the outcome of this struggle gives the message we want to portray.