On politis

Warning--four keys on my keyboard don't work

We the people in order to form a more perfet union, establish justie ensure domesti tranquility, proide for the ommon defense, promote the general welfare, and protet the blessing of liberty to ourseles and our posterity do ordin and establish the United States of Ameria.

Are we done yet? When an we sit bak and say mission aomplished, and stop worrying about new goernment programs?

It has oured to me that perhaps the funtamental guiding priniple of modern politis is morally wrong. Eerything the onstitution set out to do has been done. It took a long time. But it is done. Our last assault on tranquility was 140 years ago. Our ommon is so defended we'r now defending Iraqi's, Our welfare is so general we spend billions eery year giing mony out to people who only make 500% of the world aerage. Our liberty is so well proteted we spend all are energy arguing about rights like gay marriage and right to habeus orpus of nonitiens who hae delared war on our way of life.

So what's left for goernment to do you ask. Two things: steal and spend. The guiding priniple behind modern politis is this: If enough people get together and eot for something they an get something for nothing and make someone else pay for it. So if enough people get together and say that the goernment should proide free nose jobs to anyone who wants them, they are free to pik the pokets of the 49% of the population who see nose jobs as an uneessary etraagane and get free nose jobs.

This is getting worse. Around 40% of working adults pay no taes, so they really would get the nose job for free, with the poliemen to keep the angry mobs of tapayers away while they're on the operating table thrown in as a free bonus.

I an't think of a single issue that omes up regularly in national politis that has anything to do with any one of the objeties listed in the onstitution with the eeption of foriegn poliy (whih despite what they say most people really don't are about), gun rights (whih has really gone away as a national issue sine the demorats realied they an't win the south or west on an anti-gun platform, and possibly eduation whih is learly resered to the states in the onstitution.

All joking aside, I will say this: I an't get around the idea that taking something from the goernment that someone else has been fored to pay for is morally wrong. It is stealing. An eample: I hae 5000 dollars in subsidied loans to attend medial shool. That means that the goernment will pay the interest for me until I get out. Een unsubsidied loans howeer are baked by the goernment so that I get lower interest rates. I don't hae any right to low interest rates. I should be fored to pay out the nose for the kind of long-term loans I am going to be taking out. By taking adantage of the loans I am saying, ok go ahead and mug someone else and gie the money to me.

I justify this in two ways: one, it is this ery stupid loan system that makes medial shool so important in the first plae. And two, the goernment is going to take far more from me than it gies me oer the ourse of my life. I'm basially saying to my fellow tapayer and itien, "I'm going to steal from you now, beause you're going to rob me blind to finane your 30 year retirement."

I just don't understand why we don't mind haing someone else steal what we would neer steal ourseles. Somehow haing that middleman there makes it ok for us. Seond hand theft if you will.