Government of the workers, by the esquires, for the elite.

The title says it all. 

But for clarification, the workers are the real producers of wealth.  They are the farmers who till the fields,  the carpenters, bricklayers and architects who build the homes, the factory workers and engineers build the machines to make our lives more comfortable, the modern day hunters who raise livestock, the scientists that discover more about our environment, doctors and other health workers to increase our life span, and the entrepeneurs who have ideas and invest in their realization.

The esquires are an upper class in the United States.  Even though the Constitution prohibits titles, the legal profession who have rights not granted to other citizens are granted that title.

The elite are the real power brokers.  Since they have somehow reached a point that they are no longer concerned with their wealth, they now believe that they should control the lives of the rest of the citizens.  They finance esquires to attain positions in government to make laws and administer the national resources for their benefit.  They finance organizations to influence the citizens, control the news, and do whatever is necessary, illegally if required, to accomplish their objectives.

Why this opinion?

Up until now, this writer has rejected this argument that has been posed by so many others, including my own Dad, God rest his soul.  Although he did not express his opinions in the same terms, he did believe that there was some sort of class structure in the United States, and that he was part of the worker class.  In fact he did not trust his own relative who was a lawyer based on that conviction.  Several events have convinced me that there must some truth in these arguments and that the least we should do is recognize that our beloved United States is drifting in that direction.

Firstly, last November, I saw a man elected President of the United States who has less experience than I have running a corporation.  He also exhibits a lack of understanding the operation of the capitalistic system and its benefits or he is opposed to it.  He seems to believe that profit is evil and that the government can better manage the economy and our lives.  He is one of the esquires, and has not yet explained how, a poor college student and community organizer, has been able to accumulate so much wealth in so short a time.  One suspects, and there are connections to some of the identified elite, that he is being funded by the elite for their purposes.

Secondly, a man who tortured dogs unmercifully, by mistake, (he claims) has been released from prison and landed a contract for $1 million + to continue his career in football.  Someone, somewhere, has pulled the string to authorize that kind of expenditure, in spite of the American culture that considers his crimes beyond the pale morally.  Only the elite would have that kind of money, and that kind of control. 

Thirdly, we see a Company, General Electric, funding news casts on their own station that support the so-called health-care reform bill.  And who is one of the largest beneficiaries of this plan?  Have you ever noticed the name on the side of imaging systems, particularly MRIs?

Is this Communism?

Even though there are a lot of similarities to Communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, that is "a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society", there are a number of differences.
  1. There are still two parties.  Obviously, we now face the danger of one party overwhelming the other.
  2. Our society is, at the moment, based on private ownership of property and the means of production.  Government ownership of even a portion, and a large portion at that, of parts of the banking segment, the production of automobiles, and the control of the real estate segment via a powerful congressional committee is certainly a remarkable challenge to the private ownership idea which is necessary in a free society.
That we are moving toward a communistic model is undeniable.  The efforts underway to control the whole of the medical care is an assumption that the government, the elite, can better make decisions about medical care than the market.  The current debate about the "public option"  is noise and does not address the concern that the governments has yet to efficiently manage any enterprise, ( the house of ill repute in Nevada, the post office, medicare)

Is this an Oligarchy?

Could be.  If so, it is a silent oligarchy where the few or the elite as described above do not necessarily publicise their role. By the way, an oligarchy is "A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons; also, those who form the ruling few."  Often, as in the case of the Soviet Union, the public government takes a form such as a socialistic one party system.  It is this authors opinion that a one party system is easier to control by the elite and for that reason a government evolving toward a one party system, as is the U.S. Government, is suspect. 

How do we tell?  Follow the money. Who benefits?  A government run healthcare system benefits owners of corporations that sell equipment into those companies.  General Electric sells the most expensive equipment into the medical complex.  A component of the proposals on the floor is savings by better record keeping.  Computers? Microsoft?  Does that ring a bell?  Who do the major stockholders support? 

What has sustained this form?

We have exchanged freedom for security.  We fell for the promise that if we contributed only 1% (2% including our employers' contribution) of our income to the government Social Security program, we would be able to retire with an adequate income.  Now that 2% has become 12.4% with the promise that it will go bankrupt in less than 20 years.  Then came Medicare.  That started with 0.7% in 1966, now 2.9%.  Now we are to believe that we can put our medical care into the hands of the government that has failed so miserably to estimate the cost of Social Security and Medicare and all it will cost increase our debt $10,000,000,000 by 2020.

Was this what our founders intended?

Anyone who has read and understand the implications of the Declaration of Independence should understand that our founders valued freedom above all else.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

What many do not remember is the second and third sentences of this paragraph.  However, our founders realized that governments can stray from those truths.  That it may be necessary to change the form if it does not observe the truths.  One should remember that the constitution built our government with those truths in mind.  Only when we ignore those truths and the constitution can we stray from its original intent.

What, if anything, can we do now?

We must act now to avoid leaving a bankrupt country, one that literally enslaves its citizens, to our children.  We must impress upon our representatives that they are employees of the citizens.  We must remove the arrogant Representatives and Senators that tell their employers that the employers are not going to tell them how they are going to run their offices.

We must insist on visibility. And we must examine every proposal with an eye on what it will cost, both in cash, and in freedom. 

We must make our opinions known to our representatives, then work to get rid of them if they are not doing their job, part of which is reading and understanding every law, and every part of every law, that they vote for. 

And, most importantly, we must make sure that our children are educated and not indoctrinated.  We must, as citizens, understand and teach our children history, particularly about our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  We must understand why capitalism works in a free society and that profit is not an evil thing and again teach our children what we know.  We must try to educate others and we MUST take a stand. 

  • "Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

  • "The patriot, like the Christian, must learn that to bear revilings and persecutions is a part of his duty; and in proportion as the trial is severe, firmness under it becomes more requisite and praiseworthy. It requires, indeed, self-command. But that will be fortified in proportion as the calls for its exercise are repeated." --Thomas Jefferson

What did our founders do before 1776?

Thomas Jefferson achieved distinction as, among other things, a horticulturist, statesman, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, inventor...

John Adams was a Puritan and a lawyer.

George Washington was a surveyor, planter, which historians defined as those who held 20 or more slaves, and a major in the Virginia at the age of 20.

Benjamin Franklin  was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier, and diplomat.