Killing America: What Poisoned A Noble Experiment

Killing America: What Poisoned a Noble Experiment?

By Jon J Mercurio

Copyright 2014 Jon Mercurio

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite ebook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Genesis: In the Beginning

Formation of the American Experiment

Taxation: A Conundrum

An Ideology Morphs into Politics

Federalism

Playing the Equality Game

The Seeds of Anarchy

What is a Progressive?

The Transition

Economics 101

Washington Takes Charge

Fundamentally Changing Washington

A Case for Smaller Government

Appendix A: The Federal Budget

Footnotes

About the Author

Other Books by Jon Mercurio

Connect with Jon Mercurio

Introduction

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it George Santayana (1863-1952)

The formation of the American Republic was effectively an experiment initiated by an element a populace exasperated by a form of government which was thought to be manifest but was, by its very nature, tyrannical. It so happened that for some time the experimenters, while somewhat removed from the direct totalitarianism that monarchies and oligarchies inflict, had been influenced by writer-philosophers who did experience the burden that such oppressive forms of government impose. The philosophy of these writers reaching far back into history revived an ideology that focused on the freedom that individuals had before there were governments. In that primitive time there was no ‘society’ and hence no need for governing; the individual was free to express whatever mood or manner suited his current disposition. However, the individual was generally not completely isolated, he was a member of a family, perhaps even a clan, and as such his behavior had an impact on the other members of the group – no matter how small or large. But large is relative; it was likely no more than a few siblings, their parents and perhaps several members of an older generation. However, even within such a close-knit structure, there has to be rules. Rules are the elements that govern behavior so that order can be maintained and, most important, ensure survival. The advancement of humans, which resulted in the codification of such rules – now called laws, did not destroy the basic instinct toward survival and freedom. Those basic instincts are most obviously and constantly demonstrated in such reactions as being startled by a sudden noise, flinching and coughing. Coughing is reflexive; something over which we have very little control; but other things, like protection of the territory that provides our sustenance, are now considered territorial rather than instinctive – the difference is a matter of degree. Perhaps it is because mankind sees itself as being far advanced from primitive animals; that the difference is looked upon in another way - ignored. I attribute this ignorance to the fact that we have mentally removed and placed ourselves above the animal kingdom to which we have always belonged.

Animals, in general, have little feelings for the wants and needs of others and it is this element of behavior that most people see as that which separates humans from the remainder of creation. Sympathy is certainly the domain of the human animal but it is not exclusively ours. Using a honed cognitive/reasoning ability we have re-learned that the lumbering wild elephant mourns the loss of a companion – not just a mate but any other members of its clan with whom it had acquaintance – an emotion we once thought was in the exclusive domain of humans. Thus if compassion isn’t solely a human trait we might ask is there anything human we can point to that sets us apart from the rest of the animal world? Physiologically there is certainly nothing unique; in perhaps the most critical to survival, procreation, we are inseparable from the greater part of the animal world. Some might suggest cognitive skills; but is thinking truly unique and does it provide grounds for reparability?

Most scientifically minded people realize that we are a product of evolution, that we evolved from primitive creatures that, if we ran into one today, we might put into the same category as the chimpanzee or the gorilla. Our distant ancestors probably had about the same cognitive ability as any current primate in the local zoo. Animals that exhibit a similar reaction to sudden noises and to the loss of a companion like most humans do; creatures that have the ability to learn simple tasks just as our ancestors discovered for themselves and passed on through a learning process. Tasks such as the tool making process and building a, rather than simply seeking, shelter and preservation of foodstuffs for some future period are the signs of advancing, not advanced, cognitive skills. Perhaps separability is manifested in remembrance and transference. Family-based emotions, such as sympathy, love and caring for others, are not unique to humans probably because it stems from an instinct that is crudely referred to as ‘survival of the species’. Seemingly on the opposite side of that emotion, but likely rooted in that same animal instinct, are greed and envy. We care for our mates because it is through them that there is the possibility that our own genes are passed on to future generations – that is, in its simplest form, survival. No animal can live forever so survival is realized through the passing-on of genes.

In this model envy is a merely a base emotion designed, by nature, to encourage a drive toward superiority and greed is simply an attempt at exhibiting superior fitness and, similar to compassion for kin, the focus is survival of the most fit individuals and their traits. Here fitness is interpreted to mean living at the ‘top of the heap’, producing more progeny, outdoing the others so that one’s family has advantages – the upper hand. When greed is combined with intimidation or killing of competitors there is no better method of ensuring the continuity of one’s own genetic material. We constantly witness this type of behavior in the wild but rarely equate it with human behavior. As do other animals, humans routinely kill other species, for food, to ensure their own survival. And, as other animas do, human eschew the killing of other members of their species. This is just an extension of individual survival recognized as species preservation, but humans tend to put in a separate category and call it sociology as if it were a uniquely human trait.

In the wild the fact that the strongest, most virile, the most beautiful, the greatest showman are the most successful in attracting mates is a testament to the notion that, given the choice, most species, perhaps as a check on self destruction, exhibit intimidation rather than the killing of a weaker, inferior competitor; but this is not an absolute. We know of some species where progeny need to be protected from one or the other parent. In such cases the drive for self-preservation and dominance is sufficiently strong to blind a parent to the fact that it may be destroying its own genes, its own species. Such behavioral tendencies were designed to ensure survival; inherent in this scheme, devised by nature, is a culling of the weakest - the most undesirable. Until the most modern of times humans have unwittingly abided in this scheme. This was patent in the creation of hierarchical societies where even murder and exploitation of seemingly inferior people became accepted. Murderers, like diseases, tend to threaten a species thus there exists a tendency to isolate and eradicate such intimate threats before they accomplish that task. The human presence is sufficiently large that we generally don’t view prisons or the death penalty as tool for species survival, but in essence they serve the purpose of isolation and eradication. The penal system effectively protects the ‘better’ elements; the self-identified ‘more fit’ of society from individuals with undesirable traits. It is a response driven by the need, at the social level, for protection of the self-chosen ‘more fit’ elements that protects the group, which in turn protects the individual from annihilation; it is survival of the fittest operating at the level of a society rather than at the level of the individual.

We must make note that when the definition of fitness is raised from the individual to the social level a new selection criteria is introduced. It is the self identification of best traits that finds its way into natures order. Nature, driven by the highest necessity- survival, is oblivious to the emotion of compassion; it allows nothing to interfere with its goal of achieving, through constant adaptability, an ever increasing level of fitness. When an individual or a society tampers with nature’s proven ability to make the proper selection of traits, it risks survival. In nature’s scheme, compassion is nothing more than a consolation prize awarded to the losers in the battle for survival. It cannot be a coincidence that ‘console’ is a companion word of ‘compassion’; both reserved to be showered on the least fit, individuals we identify as the least fortunate; individuals unable or unwilling to survive. In nature those so identified are those that fail to survive and thusly are excluded from contribution to the gene pool. If compassion is allowed to be identified as a desirable trait it must be accompanied with its ‘warning label’. That label out of necessity should include the old adage a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. When a society tolerates individuals who cannot survive without the assistance of other members it introduces a weakness that threatens to lower the whole toward the level of the weakest; the antithesis of the natures intent. Such a harsh verdict must be tempered with several caveats.

The first admonition has already been touched upon when we noted that, in the wild, nature’s way is such that the weakest are not eliminated by members of their species but are usually allowed to continue, generally unaided and ignored, until weakness itself does its job. On the other hand if such an individual exhibits sufficient self reliance that he survives to procreate he exhibits an admirable trait worthy of continuation. If individuals who exhibit undesirable traits fail to procreate there is little or no chance that those characteristics will be passed onto future generations - society as a whole reaps the benefit. Likewise if a particular feature is deemed desirable individuals possessing such will find themselves overwhelmed by suitors meaning the potential for generational transfer of those features are enhanced. This is a well accepted premise when it comes to physical features, but isn’t such just a reversion to the ‘call of the wild’? If humans have indeed advanced to be above the bower bird and the plains animals should we not be using more the elements that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, intelligence and remembrance, as the primary selection tool?

Polling shows that most Americans feel that we're on the wrong track; but they do not seem to be able to point to the reason nor do they have a grasp on ideas that could put America back on track. We address this point by reviewing the exceptional American history; a history that put us on what most would agree was the right track and then look at several points in that history that we feel led to the derailment. Of Course, I would be remiss in simply pointing to potential factors without suggesting remedies that might reestablish the solid underpinning our founders gave us. Many suggest returning power to the States or the individual but, short of a civil war, how does one overcome a well entrenched establishment to do that?

The American story, as we all know, is unique, something that all Americans should be proud to continue. So why is it that so many feel dissatisfied with their government – the very thing that established and then enabled America to be what it was; an entity that allowed us to be Proud to be an American.

Genesis: In the Beginning

Our introduction could have been written by any one of the many people who introduced the Progressive movement to American Politics but the discussion of Progressivism must be postponed. It needs to be discussed because it is at the root of the dissatisfaction and it is the proud moniker of those who oppose returning to the principles that produced American Idealism. The ‘American idea’ was born out of a frustration over an intolerable government. Almost from the time the socialization of the human animal began, people have experienced oppressive governments and rarely are these governments successfully challenged; they simply seem to self-destruct. Social structures such as governments require leaders, and human nature being what it is, particular members of groups assume these leadership roles. Regardless of the original basis for that leadership role, we find that, all too often, those who assume such a role eventually acquire an attitude of superiority over those being led. Whether it is a result of brute force, charisma or something in-between, leaders, since the beginning, have generally assumed somewhat of a dictatorial posture. That this was the case before recorded history is pure conjecture, but beginning with the annals of the Egyptians and Sumerians and later the Chinese we find humans in hierarchical societies inevitably with a single individual assuming the role of leadership; kings, pharaohs, and emperors are our tradition. It wasn't until the Greeks introduced the notions of oligarchy and democracy that people seemed to have discovered the possibility of different sorts of arrangements. Those Greeks, and after them, the Romans experimented with three forms