The “establishment hierarchies” of the Republican and Democratic parties are not the adversaries they would like us to think they are. They are partners in a symbiotic oligarchic relationship based on an egalitarian ideology, social justice, redistribution of wealth and a world where the equality of outcomes supersedes equality of opportunity.
The candidates articulate superficial differences in sound bites and slogans, never addressing the basic issue in the world today: the conflict between the two opposite social principles of individualism and collectivism. It is not surprising the voters are looking for an “outsider.”
Individualism states the power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Under a system of individualism, neither a mob nor a million men can pass a law to enslave or kill one man for their own benefit.
Collectivism states the power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes. Under a system of collectivism, a million men or a mob can pass a law to enslave or kill one man (or any minority) whenever they think they would benefit by his death.
His right to live is not recognized. Does a mob named ISIS come to mind?
Before I vote, I would like to know towards which social principle a candidate is inclined. I would like each candidate to respond to the following: I propose you keep all that you earn and I keep all that I earn.
If you disagree, how much of what I earn belongs to you and why?