Freedom of Movement

-By Dan Scott

When does the right of having a job where you live become a euphemism for totalitarianism taking away your most basic human right of freedom of movement? An interesting letter to Barack Obama was published in the Toledo Blade. It cleverly reinforced the fear of economic uncertainty and offered a socialistic solution under the guise of government policies to get you to stay put. It has been clearly demonstrated that the policies of FDR after the stock market crash of 1929 prolonged the Great Depression in the US and by extension throughout the world. The Great Depression also created the fertile ground for Hitler’s ascendency to power in Germany and Benito Mussolini’s in Italy.

I believe there is an underlying insidious agenda operating in the phrase, “where they live”. Does it not occur to anyone that the one thing liberals have always feared the most is the mobility of the populace? The fundamental premise in freedom of moment is personal responsibility. If you undermine a person’s belief they are personally responsible for their actions and therefore consequences then such a person can be controlled. If you convince a person that their fate is no longer in their hands but a victim of circumstance, then that person will do whatever you require.

If a state or local jurisdiction gets overrun with liberals micromanaging and over taxing the area, Americans traditionally have voted with their feet. Or have we forgotten the phrase white flight? (As though people moving away from totalitarian control and liberal incompetence are racist) The one thing about attempting to force people under the rule of liberalism in America is that it is blunted by the ability to get out from under it by moving. This is exactly why our forebears came to America in the first place, they voted with their feet to get out from under the abusive authority of bureaucrats and leaders who believe they know better than anyone else. Here in America, if you can’t vote them out because the majority of voters in the area have been hoodwinked or bribed with social programs, then moving out solves the individual’s problem where their chosen lifestyle is not being respected and worse being put upon to subsidize bad public policy. This is one freedom liberals have a difficultly controlling. Notice in the old Communist controlled countries, the movement of the population was strictly controlled via the bureaucracy.

No matter how stupid and PC a local government gets, in America they can’t stop you from leaving their area of control. We know what happens when enough middle class and wealthy people relocate out of an area where liberalism has gone too far. The eroding tax base finally catches up with the liberal promise and spend programs and huge deficits occur. A good example would be New York City under Mayor Dinkins or Washington DC under Mayor Marion Barry. Eventually fiscal responsibility has to occur, bills have to be paid and expenses must balance receipts. The only last resort it seems is voting with your feet when voting on election day just won’t reign in on spendthrift politicians who elevate every whim of social equality to the level of need based on your supposed bottomless pocketbook.

Liberals realize their power is limited by the freedom of movement and therefore in order to keep people under their control, they must have something as an inducement to stay. We all have seen the poor economic policies of liberals come to their logical conclusion in high property taxes, high sales taxes driving out businesses causing high unemployment. All this was done under the guise “we must do something” to solve someone else’s problem. The problem for liberals is non-uniform areas of unemployment, when the rate differential gets high enough people look elsewhere to be gainfully employed. In this light we see the real role of extending unemployment benefits is not to help a person economically BUT to keep them in the geographic area as a “voting” dependent. My proof of this is this BLS report of Metropolitan areas. Notice the areas of low unemployment? At 2.6% in Sioux Falls, SD the only reason why a person is unemployed is because it is short term or because they aren’t looking. Being unemployed when the rates are less than 5% is a happy situation for anyone looking for a job, because it is easy to get another one as it guarantees less competition for the next job.

So I ask you, why wouldn’t a person living in El Centro, CA with an unemployment rate of 24.7% pack up and move especially when they need only move across the state line to Flagstaff, Arizona with 5.1% unemployment? Or a little further to Santa Fe, New Mexico at 4%? Why wouldn’t a person living in Monroe Michigan with 10% unemployment not move to Madison Wisconsin at 3.5%? Doesn’t it follow that a person moving from El Centro to Flagstaff would have literally over four times (24.7/5.1) more of a chance getting a job than if they stayed? Or moving to Santa Fe would give them a six times (24.7/4) better chance? Why wouldn’t a person in Monroe almost triple their chance of getting a job in Madison? Here’s a question that no politician of the Democrat stripe wants to answer, why shouldn’t an American residing in an area of high unemployment move across state lines to an area of more likely opportunity, if illegals travel thousands of miles over national boundaries for a low paying job? I think we all know the answer. Isn’t it the very same answer to the question of why liberal Democrat politicians oppose border control and want illegals to stay?

Also in this light, from a liberal perspective of keeping people tied to a geographic area and therefore under their control, the Community Reinvestment Act has an ulterior motive. A family in a marginal economic position would normally be renting a place. The lack of jobs in the area would get them relocate elsewhere if they were renting. On the other hand, if they owned a house, they are legally tied to the area. Now isn’t it a coincidence that no one can buy or sell houses because banks are unwilling to loan money for fear of default or having the principal written down on them thus not only losing interest but their investment as well? Coincidence or intended result, the credit lock on home mortgages?

Is it a coincidence that AGW supporters are trying to convince everyone to give up their cars to take the bus or train? Isn’t the hallmark of American living, the mobility given to individual citizens by the car? Aren’t liberals trying to dissuade us from flying in planes? It seems every form of mobility is under attack by liberals. It seems liberals want us to stay in one spot, some might suggest a plantation mentality is being deliberately cultivated. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

———-
Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth.Dan can be seen on the web at http://www.geocities.com/fightbigotry2002/ as well as http://www.geocities.com/dscott8186/saidwebpage.htm, And can be reached for comments at dscott8186@yahoo.com.