L&G-

If you will open your eyes to notice, it will become apparent that society has been divided into two classes and one class is burdened with the obligation of providing, hamstrung, while the other is walking freely, strutting even, accepting the entitlements of said class with impunity. And the obligation is rendered such through the ideology that the class due for entitlements is worthy based on what the other class has made. It is theft. What the class of entitlement sets to do is to make sure that it is not receiving less than its 'fair share' of what the burdened class is producing. This produces a phenomenon of resistance such that the entitlement class is opposed to whatever the burdened class does the former counteracting and besieging the latter. The entitlement class is more concerned with political power rather than solving problems or making social progress.

In fact, there is a euphemism called 'social progress' when the entitlement class avers, "Had enough?", which is intended to suggest oppression and the overcoming of adversity. The euphemism of 'social progress' symbolizes the advancement of special interests at the expense of the body-politic at large. When the entitled class bellows for 'diversity' and 'equality' they are keeping one eye peeled at all times on the burdened class, making sure there are no differences in the allotments between [the burdened] and themselves. If such perception of inequality (or relative deprivation) arises, the entitled class goes on attack to usurp that which has arisen and they split up the spoils based on a cronyist structure (i.e., based on political favors).

There is a saying that laziness and [the ruthless hand of] ignorance lie in the same bed. The reason why the '3rd World' remains poor is because of the ideology that if anyone has gained something, that person should be punished (for having more) and the proceeds should be divvied up, just as I have explained. This disenfranchises entrepreneurship and disincentivizes innovation because, when people cannot keep what they earn and they are duly punished for their gains, what is the incentive to work toward these ends? The answer is that there is no incentive and this is nothing but Satan's cunning ruse to keep people unhappy and at each others' throats. God set up a blueprint for morality in the OT with outward laws - more or less embodied in the Decalogue. Jesus came to inform a large part of the [law's intent] as well as to fulfill the rest.

God sets up boundaries in order to give people their portion, which is property [rights], ergo wealth. God's portion is his people.
God set up morality to basically restrain people from doing things which their evil nature sets them toward. It is this [virtuous] self-restraint that forms the basis of all civil society. That is why, in the civilized world, people have [human] rights and in the barbaric 'developing world' people are treated inconsequentially, as human chattel - esp. women. There are no boundaries among the pagans because people aren't held back by the same sympathies and the same humanity we feel when our hearts are circumcised by God. The American Republic is founded upon principles of Republicanism, or the idea that each individual, in seeking his/her own best interests within the confines of civil law, will advance the interests of the public good. And that, within the confines of the law, each man* should be free to seek his own ends (i.e., job, family, hobbies, etc.).

People, I think, tend to have the notion that the law can give them power. That is wrong; the law cannot give, it can only take away. When people are free under the law, it represents a lack of restraint. Now I mentioned that when people are given 'special liberties', the rest of the body politic has to pay for it because in God's economy, there is no free lunch. Let me use an example to explain what I mean. Consider an airplane, e.g., Southwest Airlines which has the same [coach] seating for everyone with a certain number of seats on the plane and each seat has the same amount of leg room. In order to give one person more legroom (and keep the same number of seats on the plane), you would have to take away the leg room of the others on the plane. If you were going to be 'just' regarding the new distribution, you would have to take away an equal amount of leg room from each of the remaining passengers, or distribute it equally. On the other hand, if more than one person were to require more legroom, you would have to consequently take away the leg room of each of the rest of the passengers, equally, as it were. The only way to get more legroom [for special individuals] is to take away the legroom of the remaining passengers, or, to remove seats.

The law cannot make people more free than no law can (e.g., in a tribal society without government), it can only restrain some less and others more. I wrote an email about police that put a man in handcuffs "...for [his own] safety and for [the policemen's] safety." This suggests that safety lies in restraint. If we can restrain the people who are threatening to us, or those who could pose a threat to society, then we can be more assured about our own safety. Now the ideal of 'protected classes' receiving liberties is such that, the aforementioned are unrestrained while whomever remains [unprotected] is restrained**. The converse, applying the same principle, would be giving everyone 'equal' rights, but taking away the rights of some for the sake of making others safer. The idea that 'protected classes' need more liberty is rooted in the notion that the [unprotected] pose a threat to society. God says that the fate of wild beasts is only to be: 'caught and killed'. Do you know why that is? The rationale is that wild beasts are unpredictable and pose a risk to society; they must be subdued and eliminated.


*man. species, not gender
**restrained...unrestrained. relatively speaking