Why Collectivists Try To Replace God With Experts

Posted: Sep 05, 2018 10:21 AM
Why Collectivists Try To Replace God With Experts

The separation of authority – God or the government – is at the very core of why the collectivists work to diminish God’s role in the United States.  In their view, God stands in the way of controlling the citizenry’s lives.  It is a battle of who has the ultimate authority of individuals.  In the Great Experiment, the United States, this definitive authority is the individual with God in their heart – that is liberty.  Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler explain:

…the religious worldview is the single most serious threat to the secular Left’s utopian vision.  This vision relies upon a powerful, centralized, bureaucratic government that must be the highest authority in the land to ensure compliance.   Dissent is not tolerated.   Adherence is essential.  Every aspect of the lives of citizens must be controlled by the authority of state law, including personal belief.

America, however, was founded on Judeo-Christian principles with a limited national government that upheld the individual’s rights of conscience.  Therefore, it is necessary for the secular Left to keep citizens ignorant about their history, their heritage, the Judeo-Christian roots of American culture, and even their Creator if they are to impose their secular-socialist agenda on this nation.[1]

The great Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek also discloses another lie the collectivist guise under the cloak of goodness.  “[B]y giving up freedom in what are, or ought to be, the less important aspects of our lives, we shall obtain greater freedom in the pursuit of higher values.”[2]  The collectivists also declare that we are in need of “experts”[3] who alone have the time, knowledge, skills, and experience to direct resources and our lives in a benevolent manner for our own good and improvement.  Besides the fact that these people will not always be benevolent, who is to say they know better than we do on matters that impact our lives.  In fact, John Locke directs us to reference history to know the reality of human nature.  Locke writes, “For he that thinks absolute power purifies men’s bloods, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age to be convinced of the contrary.”[4]  Enlightenment philosopher, Charles Montesquieu Montesquieu, wrote of this as well, stating that “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it.” This wisdom led him to articulate the concept of the separation of powers.  “To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.  A government may be so constituted, as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits.”[5]  The law must remain contained within Natural Law as declared in the Declaration of Independence--whether it is the Constitution, federal laws, state laws or local laws and ordinances.  Yet, this abuse has fermented from the very government which is appointed by the citizenry to uphold the liberty we are granted by God; the liberty which history has shown has been repeatedly violated by man.

Often, these elitists pass laws from which they exempt themselves.  This is egregious, repugnant, and immoral; and according to Locke, “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it…and so can be no part or member of that civil society.”[6]  Montesquieu agreed, stating “that human nature should perpetually rise up against despotism.  But notwithstanding the love of liberty, so natural to mankind, notwithstanding their innate detestation of force and violence, most nations are subject to this very government…rarely produced by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence.”[7]

Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolution, put forth that “free government is founded in jealousy; and not in confidence; it is jealousy not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions.”[8]  Jefferson’s comment thwarts the elitist’s notion that the Constitution is a living documents, such as Woodrow Wilson and the contemporary collectivists of today; it is tied it to principle, not need and evolution.  Wilson and other elitists continually state that the Constitution must evolve and change with the needs of the time and of the people.  Jefferson states absolutely not!  And that we must jealously guard against these types whom willingly want to destroy our principles and rule over us by their whims.

Thomas Sowell astutely describes these types of people as our betters; apparently we are not capable of managing ourselves and need our betters to decide and choose for us.  Sowell described these people with utter clarity, which explains their obsession against any and all liberty, when he wrote, “The fundamental problem with the political left [collectivists, statists, etc.] seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions.   Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.”[9]  This is also why they are so arrogant, smug, and completely condescending to their opponents, and every other freedom loving person.  They are relentless and dangerous, as they will stop at nothing to achieve their desired objectives – even at the expense of others, freedom, economic soundness, or civil stability.

[1] Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler, February 2010, “There is NO Liberty without Religious Liberty,” [http://govtrack2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/there-is-no-liberty-without-religious-liberty-to-save-america-by-gingrich.pdf].

[2] Friedrich A. von Hayek (Bruce Caldwell, Ed.), 2007 (originally published in 1944), The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents, .(Routledge, London: The University of Chicago Press), p. 124.

[3] Experts – politicians, legislators, academics, political appointees, judges, Presidents, regulators, czars, and so on.

[4] John Locke, 1982, ed. Richard Cox (originally published in 1690), Second Treatise of Government, “Book VII:  Of Political or Civil Society, Sec. 92,” (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc.), p. 55.

[5] Charles de Montesquieu, 2010 (originally published in 1748), The Spirit of the Laws, “Book XI: Of the Laws which Establish Political Liberty, with regard to the Constitution,” (Digireads.com Book), p 137.

[6] John Locke, 1982, ed. Richard Cox (originally published in 1690), Second Treatise of Government, “Book VII:  Of Political or Civil Society, Sec. 94,” (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc.), p. 57.

[7] Charles de Montesquieu, 2010 (originally published in 1748), The Spirit of the Laws, “Book V: That the Laws given by the Legislator ought to be in Relation to the Principle of Government,” (Digireads.com Book), p 72.

[8] Thomas Jefferson, November 10, 1798, “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”  (Emphasis added.)   Referenced in William J. Watkins, Jr., 2008 (originally published in 2004), Reclaiming the American Revolution:  The Kentucky and Virgainia Resolutions and their Legacy, (The Independent Institute, Palgrave Macmillan:  Oakland, CA, New York, NY), p. 68.

[9] Thomas Sowell, July 4, 2013, :The Mindset of the Left: Part III,” townhall.com, [http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/07/04/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-iii-n1631809/page/full].