Limited Government
Preserving our Liberty and Individual Responsibility
“…A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Gerald R. Ford - 38th President of the United States of America
Today, it is not uncommon to hear the phrase “Limited Government”. The principle of limited government has a long history and was a tenet of the liberal movement back in the 16th and 17th century. As governments have expanded over past two centuries, it has become a staple of conservative movement and antithesis to its alternative, “Big Government”.
Government itself, in a very simple explanation is a political apparatus by which a country, state or community is administered. In a democracy, a group of elected individuals, governed by a constitution, set public policy and exercise political authority through laws and institutions. A government is formed to serve people while managing the delicate balance between the public good and individual liberty.
About 50% of the world’s population enjoy some form of democracy. Within the democracy, political sub-ideologies influence the type of public policy and size of government. Size in this case, refers to number of public servants, extent of authority, the degree of control and the amount of taxation required to sustain its programs.
Scholars suspect the concept of limited government dates back to 13th century England. It was during this period that English Barons and peasants revolted against King John fighting lower taxation, access to fair justice, church rights and freedom from restrictive laws. As a result, the Magna Carta was born. The “Great Charter” that established the concept of freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of a King or government. It cemented the Devine rights of the individuals, fair justice and limited taxation. This Magna Carta was a guiding light for the new countries and governments that followed in its wake. The document helped shape the American Constitution and common law in the rest of the English-speaking world. And since the Magna Carta, and the numerous iterations that ensued, the debate about size and limit of government was born.
Today the principle of limited government is based on reducing government involvement in the everyday lives of individuals. Government is best served restricting its role to broader activities of the state such as defense, our economy, our environment and foreign policy. Other more confined activities should be left to individuals and businesses. The objective of limited government is to provide communities the tools to address societal issues at the local level. Individuals, businesses, charities and yes, even churches work at the community level helping those in need. In 2019 the top 100 charities in America collected $51.5B in donations. Feeding America, Habitat for Humanity and Teach America are just a few examples of charities that helped less fortunate Americans with no government funding or involvement. This shift in dependency from government back to individuals drives self reliance, fosters organic growth of community organizations and promotes participation and philanthropy.
Limited government advocates also believe in a smaller and a more nimble institution. This decreases government spending, reduces taxes and drives greater efficiency with less duplication. According to a USA Today report, duplication is rampant in the government costing Americans “tens of billions of dollars… It takes 10 different offices at the Department of Health and Human Services to run programs addressing AIDS in minority communities. Autism research is spread out over 11 different agencies. Eight agencies at the Defense Department are looking for prisoners of war and missing in action. And Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado has eight different satellite control centers to control 10 satellite programs.”
With respect to size, in the 30 years from 1960 to 1990, State and local governments grew from 6.5M employees to 15M employees, an increase of 137%. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel, in 6 years, from 2008-2014, President Obama increased the number of federal employees by 400,000 estimated to cost $20 billion annually. Government does require employees and money to operate but reducing the size eliminates a degree of waste and drives efficiency. Less federal employees and leaner government programs would free up billions of dollars for the critical areas of social security, health education and employment services.
So what of the alternative, “Big Government” ? Proponents of this philosophy believe government is there for the greater good. Undoubtedly a noble principle. Unfortunately these advocates also believe government must be involved in addressing all issues plaguing communities and as a result, more laws and regulations are put into place. Between 2000 and 2014 U.S. federal regulations costing more than $100M to administer them increased by 45%. Regulatory programs expand over time requiring more capital to fund the program and often become restrictive to the very individuals and businesses they were designed to help.
Big government also requires more management and oversight to manage their expanding enterprise. These extra levels distance our democratically elected politicians from the very people they represent. Our politicians eventually lose touch with the needs and concerns of the common individual. Ever wonder why politicians in our capital simply don’t get it ? Well now you know. As big government expands, budgets grow, spending increases, efficiencies are lost, and higher taxation follows. Here a just a few examples of inefficiencies and waste to consider… In 2003 U.S. dept. of Treasury reported $25B in unreconciled transactions. Auditors did not know who spent it, where it was spent and what it was spent on. From 1997-2003 U.S. federal government purchased and left $100M of air flight tickets unused. No refund was ever requested for the unused tickets. And between 2001-2002 auditors found 27,000 transaction in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same transaction and was never reconciled. How many extra hospitals or schools could we have built with this waste. And finally, during President Obama’s 8 years in office, his continued expansion of federal programs, increase of federal employees and massive stimulus programs resulted with significantly higher government spending. This spending grew the U.S. national debt by a staggering $9.5 trillion. This debt increase in 8 years matched the national debt accumulated by all the preceding presidents combined
So here you have it, some conjecture on my part, some history on the Magna Carta and data points most can find online. But the inspiration for my article really started with yours truly waiting in a long line up to renew my annual fishing license. As the line slowly inched forward, I was reminded of why big government simply does not work. Originating some 30 years ago, State governments in the U.S. and Provincial governments in Canada decided to charge individuals a fee to fish. The money collected would be used to keep our lakes and rivers clean. What a great idea! Who would object? Well, 30 years later, let us examine how this program has evolved. First, State governments instituted the annual fee. Governments mobilized and built organizations to manage the licenses. People were hired, offices secured, processes developed, and computer systems deployed. All of this provided the mechanism to collect the license fee. Later came fishing licenses with picture ids., of course, at a higher cost. Well you cannot have a fee mechanism without a penalty, so governments hired enforcement officers to patrol lakes and rivers. Next came the high-end speed boats and SUV’s outfitted to these enforcement officers. And for what? Oh yes, to catch some 45-year-old father with his 9-year-old daughter on an obscure lake in Northern Michigan fishing for large mouth bass. Yes, of course, I almost forgot why. So here we are. As I paid my $25 to fish in our public lakes, I tried to imagine how the proceeds from this license fee can pay for all the government expenses and fund the cleaning of our lakes and rivers as was the original goal. I came to the sad conclusion that it cannot. Somewhere in one of the obscure clauses in a past State or Provincial budget, there was a tax hike to pay for all this. No better an example of big government with a regulation that started with all the noble intentions but became another ineffective government program. Taxes were increased to sustain the program and sadly we all lost sight of why it was first created. Now multiply this one example by the thousands of programs run by our government.
Limited government vs. big government? Both have merit but unmistakably limited government is more effective, less intrusive, more nimble, and with a predictably lower tax burden on all individuals. It encourages self reliance and enables individual and community philanthropy. It puts limitation on government authority promoting individual accountability and cherishing individual liberty. The Magna Carta was penned with the intent to limit the power of a king and government, but 800 years later it appears we’ve regressed. Governments and their authority continue to grow. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that given enough time and government expansion, the pendulum will eventually swing back with force and find its equilibrium. Let us all advocate for limited government to ensure we strike the proper balance between the individual and those that govern.
“…A wise and frugal government… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
Liberalism
The rise of intolerance
“…The American people are finally fighting back. They realize that liberalism has failed them. It is a system that has both ignored them and created a foundation for failure; a system of dependency and surrender…. A system controlling language so that only one voice, the liberal voice can ever be heard.”
Gianno Caldwell – African American author, strategic consultant and political analyst
Classic liberalism was born in the 1600-1700’s in Europe during the age of Enlightenment. In opposition to aristocracy and state enforced religion, individuals such as John Locke and later, John Stuart Mill were on the vanguard of the liberalism movement. It sought to instill the values of individual liberty, small government, freedom of thought, tolerance, empiricism, critical thinking and basic civil liberties. No doubt, at is inception, it championed these transformative virtues and paved the way for evolution of western society.
In the early 20th century, classic liberalism morphed into social liberalism and later progressive liberalism. A distinct change from its original and exceptional core values. Abandoning the pursuit of individual liberty, freedom of thought, and equality of opportunity, Liberals became the plenary advocates for equality of outcome, woman’s reproductive rights, LGBT rights, open borders, and globalization to name a few.
Along with the shift away from their core and traditional values, liberalism has undergone a distinct change in tone and tolerance. The values championed by progressive liberalism today leave no room for compromise or an alternate point of view. The progressive liberal positions have grown increasingly absolute. Agree with them or be damned. If your point of view differs from conventional liberal dogma, you are cut off from debate, shouted down, demonized, labelled, have your character assaulted in the media or all of the above. The once clarion voice of reason, tolerance, the family, the working class and the downtrodden has now been replaced by the not so quiet advocacy for globalists, elitists, special interest groups and most recently and regrettably, intolerance. Simply put, liberalism has been hi-jacked by progressives and unfortunately so to has its core values.
One need only observe the growing intolerance in liberal run institutions. In August 2017, Ryerson University in Toronto announced it would be cancelling a scheduled event called “The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses”. The event included a clinical psychologist, a member of the media and Jordan Petersen, University of Toronto psychology professor. Peterson had opposed a controversial law that would have enshrined the rights of transgender people by adding “gender identity and expression” to human rights and hate-crime laws. Professor Peterson did not support the law and still refuses to use non binary pronouns. “Arguments that biology does not determine gender stem from the humanities and are entirely ideologically driven.", said Dr. Peterson. Peterson sees the law as potentially infringing on freedom on speech and expression. "It's a tenet of the ideology that identity is socially constructed… There is no way they can win the argument but they can win the propaganda war.”, Peterson said. As a result of his position, several hundred students attended a rally protesting his presence. “We deserve to feel safe” read one of the signs of a protester. “Feel safe”, “safe space” are now common crying calls for liberals and justification to impede the right of people with an opposing perspective to be heard. As it happens, the debate was cancelled by the University and with it, was lost an opportunity to experience an honest, intellectual debate showcasing the different point of views.
There is an exhaustive list of debates shut down on University campuses diminishing our capacity to cultivate free and critical thinkers. Here are but a few examples…
Black Lives Matter shut down debate at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - A non-partisan student debating committee had announced a debate on whether “Black Lives Matter is harmful to racial relations in the United States.” A student op-ed condemned the debate topic and the student government followed declaring the topic as bigoted. When the debate did attempt to take place, hundreds of protesters forced their way into the debating room, shouting and hurling obscenities for an hour. The debate was effectively shut down with no action taken by campus police or university administrators present at the debate. No surprise, after the debate, the University administration offered no statement of condemnation or took any disciplinary action to the many protestors caught on video tape.
Conservative speaker shut down at University of Wisconsin, Madison – Claiming that Conservative speaker Ben Shapiro’s presence on campus was a threat to minority students, protestors repeatedly shouted obscenities at Shapiro during a lecture. Police present at the lecture took no action even after Shapiro asked them to intervene. The event was disrupted and the chaos continued as protestors confronted another conservative speaker at the event intimating her until she needed police protection. Not surprisingly, University of Wisconsin took no action during or after the event.
Immigration and customs enforcement speaker driven off Northwestern University campus - Student chanting vulgar obscenities drove a representative from the US Customs and Enforcement office off their campus. The representative was invited to speak to students about immigration and the role of ICE in America. Student demonstrators rejected the premise of having any dialogue that rationalized or legitimized the Federal government body hence their provocative action of intimidation and suppressing free speech went on unabated.
Pro-life groups shut down at Oxford University in England, Pro-life groups smoke bombed at University of Texas as Austin in 2019, Pro life volunteers attacked at George Washington University in 2019; simply not enough time and space to give all the examples of the bias and repression of pro-life speakers and groups.
And perhaps, the most ironic example, protestors shut down their own Harvard University President Lawrence Bacow during his 2019 speech at Harvard University regarding expanding economic opportunities. 30 protestors stormed the stage at the John F Kennedy Jr. Forum shouting down President Bacow with their objections to the University’s $400M budget and how it is invested. Backow was unable to continue with his speech. Shortly after, President Bacow published an editorial piece in the Harvard Crimson stating, “The heckler’s veto has no place at Harvard. When we shut down conversation, when we shut down debate, we shut down the opportunity to learn through reasoned discourse. What kind of community do we want to be?"
So here you have just a few examples and common in each are the tactics of shouting down the individual, yelling obscenities, intimidation, and utter intolerance to a different point of view. Complicit in these actions of protestors are the inactions of university authorities, media and our political leaders. In our democracy, we believe we have the right to express ourselves… our revered freedom of speech. However, one can only conclude the progressive liberals don’t believe all points of views are equal. You can have a dissenting perspective but you will not be permitted to express it in the public square. “Its easier to denounce than to debate.”, said Peter McKinnon, a legal scholar and former president of the University of Saskatchewan. So conform to the progressive liberal dogma or your voice will be shut down. If they can’t shut you down, Progressive Liberals will resort to the familiar divisive name calling we know all too well; “your point of view is homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, racist, full of hate… “ and on an on.
Cultivating intolerance and interdiction towards opposing points of view will disenfranchise broad swaths of our society. This will ultimately sow the seeds of civil distrust and division, and weaken the bedrock of our democracy. The time has come to stand up to this intolerance and let progressive liberals know that this is not acceptable in a humane and tolerant society. Regardless of your political persuasion, it is in our best interest to stop this practice as the wedge it is driving into the fabric of our society is widening beyond repair. Liberals, it is time you rediscover your founding principles and let freedom of thought and expression reign.
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”
Benjamin Franklin - One of the founding fathers of the United States. A noted inventor, scientist, political philosopher, activist, statesman and founder of the University of Pennsylvania
The Ruling Class
Threat to our democracy
“…The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, ie., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”
Karl Marx – Philosopher, political theorist and social revolutionary
An elite group of super wealthy individuals are spending millions of dollars in America, Canada and Europe to buy influence, grow their power and increase their wealth. This class of individuals, this Ruling Class, is using their material wealth to control a virtual group that includes politicians and members of the media, big tech, entertainment and academia to influence our laws, shape social norms and create a culture of dependency over the working class and the poor. A practice that is undermining the very foundation of our democracy. This Ruling Class benefits by a preoccupied society and a weakened middleclass for a beleaguered country is easier to control. It is in part, why there is a growing number of political and cultural leaders that are advocating for the violence and divisiveness that is ravaging our communities.
Karl Marx theorized that the class of individuals that control a country’s “material production” also control “mental production”. Throughout history, there has always been an elite class of individuals that controlled a country’s wealth and actively affected political policy and cultural norms using the influencers of the day. During feudalism in Medieval Europe, the nobility shaped society using the clergy as influencers. They convinced the peasants and serfs to accept their place in society. The universal truth of the day was that this was God’s will and the peasants would be rewarded in heaven. This acceptance cemented the Social class system in Medieval Europe. It became the accepted social norm for over 600 years to the benefit of the nobility Ruling class until the societal shift that occurred during The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. Today, Royalty has been replaced by the super wealthy and the religious influencers have been replaced by our lifetime politicians, members of the media, big tech and academia. The players have shifted but the practice of a Ruling Class shaping our politics and culture has not changed.
The modern day Ruling class likely came to light in 1961, as President Dwight Eisenhower was transitioning power to John F. Kennedy. In his final speech as President, Eisenhower warned Americans about a threat to our democratic government. He called it the “military-industrial complex”. A dangerous union between defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military establishment. A group that had unwarranted influence on government, and this was a “disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Eisenhower argued this group was directly responsible for the military expansion that funneled trillions of dollars to arms suppliers and an elite group of investors. They built wealth while actively influencing government policy.
So here we are today, a small group of the super wealthy that augment their pursuit of wealth with their pursuit of power. These elitists are the “Controllers” of this virtual, but very powerful organization. Part of this apparatus, include the “Influencers”. These are the lifetime politicians, lobbyists, media members, big tech companies and academics that are engaged to influence the populous. At the very bottom of the pyramid are the “Dependents”. These are the government workers, bureaucrats and people on government assistance that derive 100% of their income from the government. This group empowers the the Ruling Class and progressive governments for they have little impetus to change this harmful model.
This Ruling Class hierarchy can only be served by exercising three common tactics.
The first tactic – Provide vast sums of money to political candidates. These are political contributions made by organizations not individuals to buy government influence. The politicians subsequently advocate on their behalf enabling the elitists to shape political policy. In 2020, the Top 20 political donations by US citizens amounted to approx. $200M to both the Republican party and the Democratic party. A staggering amount but a fair distribution across the two political parties. Conversely, when we look at companies and union organizations the disparity is alarming. The top 20 U.S. companies donated $27M to Republicans and over $300M to Democrats. The top 10 Union organizations contributed $2M to the Republican party and a whopping $122M to the National democratic party. Furthermore, these figures only partially include contributions from individuals such as George Soros, hedge fund billionaire and supporter of progressive causes. In 2018 Soros poured $700M into American politics and progressive groups. Since 1980, Soros donated more than 12 billion dollars to politicians and groups that support his progressive agenda. If this doesn’t give you pause, consider this small sampling of life time politicians. The top 10 longest serving US Congressmen and Senators in America have served a cumulative 523 years in office. That is, an average of 52 years in political office per politician. By the way, all of the longest serving politicians happen to be Democrats. Joe Biden, if you are interested, doesn’t even make the top 20 with his 43 years of political service. These politicians are heavily funded and have accumulated great wealth while in office far exceeding the proceeds of their government salary. For example, Joe Biden’s net worth in 2019, according to Forbes, was $9M. How exactly do these politicians remain in office for all these years and leave office far wealthier than when they entered public office ? Regardless of your political ideology, it is simply alarming to see the amount of money that is clearly directed to buying political influence in America. An example of how the first tactic is being executed.
The second tactic - Breed an army of “Influencers” to help manipulate the masses and shape cultural norms. Indoctrinate, mentor or fund people in influential positions. Without doubt, in today’s always connected world, the media, tech companies and academia have a great ability to mold public opinion. We find a large number of these companies and organizations funded directly or indirectly by one individual. Members within these organizations push a conformed narrative that, over time, becomes a universal truth shaping our social norms. Here is a short list of organizations supported by George Soros.
There are close to 200 foundations and organizations funded by Soros or his Open Society Foundation. This demonstrates the breadth and degree of funding and his pursuit of influence. Not only are these groups funded by Soros but many in these organizations are prominent members of our media. Van Jones, CNN analyst, Keith Obermann former host of Current TV Countdown and MSNBC, Joy Reed host on MSNBC, Arianna Huffington, Christiane Amanpour, Matt Thompson, are all members or on the board of directors of organizations funded by Soros. So now we know why objectivity in our media has completely eroded. To make matters worse, as we transition from traditional media to social media, the Tech giants; Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter have all demonstrated clear bias against conservative websites, content and politicians. In 2020 Google removed the home pages of 2 conservative websites and in the same year Facebook took down Trump campaign posts. Twitter continues to lock out conservative Twitter accounts including the President of the U.S. The Tech giants use machine learning and AI to build algorithms suppressing conservative search results, websites and contents. They funnel and curate their content and we all know curated news is outright censorship. These Progressive companies, support a specific narrative and are key Influencers in this Ruling Class apparatus.
And finally the third tactic - Cultivate divisiveness amongst us by focusing on our differences. Actively work to breed tribalism in the populous that grows the seeds of division. Check social and traditional media feeds and listen to many of our politicians; they are fixated on the language that divides. The apparatus of the Ruling Class focuses on the differences of our race, our colour, our religion. It pits women against men, black against white and focuses on those innate identities that we cannot change. In so doing, they are destroying the common beliefs and principals that we once shared across all society. Those common beliefs that kept us united, together and strong. This language of identity politics and tribalism is perhaps the single most damaging change in our political discourse since the 1950s and make no mistake, it is by design.
So there you have it, the structure and tactics of the Ruling Class. We can see this playing out before our very eyes. The sad consequence of this reality is a political system that no longer represents us, media and academia that are no longer objective, our institutions no longer trusted, and our cities and towns suffering the wounds of open violence as result of the infused divisiveness and tribalism. And during this chaos, this small group of elitists, exert their influence, continue to build their wealth, and grow their control over the common man.
Let us come together to recognize what is happening. Reject the career politicians (Liberals or Conservatives) that have built their wealth off our labour yet ignoring our best interests. Call out the bias media at MSNBC and the CNN’s of the world that curate the news and only report on those items that support their narrative. Put a stop to the Liberal bias at our Universities. A detrimental practice impacting the critical thinking skills of our next generation of leaders. Put a stop to the destruction of our institutions in the name of any cause. Our collective objective should be to improve our institutions not destroy them. And finally, demand political contribution legislation. Allow limited individual contributions only. Ban organizational or company contribution to any political campaign or activity. The recent example of the $100M spent on a November 2020 governor race in Georgia hurts our democracy. It is time to start having the honest yet difficult conversations so we can begin to heal the wounds that have been inflicted upon us. The very fabric of our democracy is at stake. Put the power back where it rightfully belongs… with the people.
“…Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America. President through the American Civil War successful in preserving the Union and abolishing slavery
Millennials
The plight of a Generation
Millennials, a generation unable to find their way in a world where globalization is decreasing their economic opportunities, the always “connected” digital technology diminishing their social skills, and progressive academia conditioning them with unprecedented bias. They are a generation engineered to accept less by the preceding generation that has everything.
J. Vero – Co-founder and contributor: Quiet Revolution 2.0
Millennials are the most education generation in our history. Over 61 % of millennials in the US have attended university. No other generation has exceeded more than 50%. This is the generation of highly educated thinkers that will soon lead our corporations, our institutions and our government. Not withstanding the debate about intrinsic intelligence vs education, millennials are without doubt, our leaders of the future.
Highly educated, under achieving, heavily in debt, and less opportunity than the generation preceding them, Millennials have yet to find their place in our world. Often the victims of gross generalizations, Millennials are not lazy, are not entitled, and are not the impatient generation they are made out to be. What they are, is the generation living with “firsts” … and suffering the consequences.
First generation to grow up in the digital era – The always “on” and always “connected” technology that brings people together, eliminates time and distance with one click and provides a virtual door to the world. It expands our minds and our horizons. The same technology is also responsible for the additional peer pressure this generation feels. Cyberbullying, online group harassment and toxic discourse is enabled by the anonymity and peer construct of this technology. Too much screen time is diminishing social skills, negatively impacting sleep patterns, creating mood swings and impairing cognitive abilities in young people. Millennials are addicted to “likes” on their Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter feeds as though it validates their very existence. End result, Millennials suffer from higher levels of anxiety and depression compared to any generation before them.
First generation living with digital driven globalization (Globalization 4.0) – Economic uncertainty persists for many millennials as wages increase in underdeveloped countries while income inequality grows in developed countries. With Millennial unemployment growing to over 9%, their economic opportunities begin to wane. As their economic opportunities dimmish, their wages also take a hit. Since 2007, Millennial wages have decreased by 8%. This is compounded as the income gap is widening for workers and lower to middle income families. Extensive research has shown that workers from lower to middle income families realized pay increases 20-40% less than high income families. Along with this economic disparity, globalization is fueling global warming. According to a 2019 PBS Newshour report, China and India combined account for 34% of global CO2 emissions. China alone has higher CO2 emissions than the US, Europe and Russia combined. And sadly, this number will increase as the Chinese economy grows. With this employment uncertainty, economic inequality and damage to our planet that globalization is driving, little wonder why Millennials will have less then the preceding generation while managing the changes that the climate emergency is forcing upon us.
First generation in modern times educated with unprecedented bias – Millennials are accustomed to hearing only one voice, the Progressive Liberal voice. Opposing point of views often times are not welcome on University campuses. And when invited to campus debates, the speakers with alternative points of view are often times, simply shut down. There are countless examples over the past 20 years of debate “shut downs” on University campus’. Perhaps the best example is Harvard University President Lawrence Bacow shouted down and unable to finish a speech involving the expansion of economic opportunity at his own university. Bacow published an editorial in the Harvard University newspaper stating, “The hecklers veto has no place at Harvard. When we shut down conversation, when we shut down debate, we shut down the opportunity to learn through reasoned discourse.” Here, an example of the bias and intolerance that is commonplace for millennials. Despite their higher education, this unprecedented bias has eroded their critical thinking skills. They have complete intolerance for a point of view that differs from their own. Sadly, this bias and intolerance affects their ability to make sound decisions.
First generation engineered to accept less - Casualties of a bad social experiment, millennials have been conditioned to seek experiences instead of the pursuing assets and wealth. They have been conditioned to believe the pursuit of wealth is no longer virtuous. Yet, the pursuit of wealth, providing it is done honestly, is a worthy quest. And who has constructed and controlled this experiment ? Oh yes, the generation that already has everything; Boomers and Gen X’ers. The two generations that own the large single dwelling homes, the summer cottages by the lake, the beach front properties along the gulf coast, and huge retirement packages. The Boomers and Gen X’ers have enough discretionary income to enjoy experiences as well as their capital assets. Millennials have been manipulated, and some would say, brainwashed by older generations that already have everything and want to keep it. And with all this manipulation, resentment will eventually follow.
And finally, the first generation seeking equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity – With fewer economic opportunities, unable to afford a home or live in large cities, and conditioned to accept less, this is the first generation in America since the beginning of the republic to seek equality of outcome. Without doubt, the thin edge of the socialism wedge. This will drive a greater dependency on government, see the expansion of government, see the introduction of a living wage and ultimately breed the complacency and dissent that has historically accompanied every socialist society. This spells the end to the culture and DNA of western civilization that’s been responsible for the greatest social, economic and scientific evolution in the history of mankind.
So here we are, the most educated and likely the most intelligent generation in history. Super smart but suffering the consequences of their environment. So what can we we do to ensure Millennials have the same opportunities afforded to previous generations ? For starters, reject globalism and those politicians that support it. Reject the Joe Bidens of the world that hire hedge fund managers as their economic advisors. Let us inject a balance of human interaction and a connection to nature in all our lives and demand Millennials do the same. This will provide the necessary balance so the digital world does not define our lives but enrich our lives. Be openly critical of the bias that has taken over our media and academia. Reject it openly and outright. Only this will enable Millennials to open their minds, consider different points of view and ignite their critical thinking skills. Finally, convince Millennials the pursuit of wealth through hard work followed by philanthropy is a noble pursuit. Equality of opportunity is the bedrock of western civilization and was the impetus for the greatest technological advancement in the history of mankind. Let us pave the way to a better world that will provide opportunities for Millennials as it has for Boomers and Gen X’ers.
“…Now, as a nation, we don’t promise equal outcomes, but we were founded on the idea everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed. No matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, you can make it. That’s an essential promise of America. Where you start should not determine where you end up.”
Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America