The Abject Amorality of Democrat Policy

Today, I am turning my blog over to Mike Ford, founder and managing editor of the American Free News Network to which I am a contributor. Mike is also a former U.S. Army Colonel and US Military Academy graduate (class of 1980). In his post, he raises several legitimate questions, such as: does the government have the Constitutional right to force citizens to relinquish property or income in order to assist other citizens who are in need? Hint: You might find the answer in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Abject Amorality of Democrat Policy

by Mike Ford

We are fast approaching a tipping point in the United States of America. It seems as though an increasing percentage of the electorate believes that the purpose of the sovereign franchise is to vote themselves an ever-expanding portion of the public treasury. There seems to be this idea that just because one person has a need, perhaps a really significant life or death need, it is the business of the government to force other citizens to respond to that need with their own labor or property.

Part of this thought process comes from a false separation between personal and property rights — to the diminution of both. By divorcing property from people, we devalue the labor that produced it, thereby also devaluing the humans who performed that labor. Some time back, I penned a piece that described the relationship between property and people.

In that piece, I opined that, in one sense, property, whether cash or actual stuff, was a form of stored labor. It’s actually a biological imperative in many animals. Look at squirrels. They labor during the summer and fall, gathering up nuts to last them for a cold winter. A tree trunk full of nuts…stored labor.

Men do the same thing. They perform so many tasks and in return, receive compensation in the form of money which in turn can be converted into things necessary for survival. The short version is, property, whether cash or in-kind, represents the effort of human beings. I came to this epiphany when my daughter’s bike got stolen off of my back porch one year, two weeks after Christmas, and I had to perform some extra labor to replace it, thus losing a portion of my life in the process. You can read about this mental awakening here: Your Property is YOU.

This diminution of humanity isn’t restricted to a Patrol Deputy being less than excited about doing a report for a stolen bicycle. The Democrats are taking this disregard for property rights, in favor of human rights, to a whole new level. It starts with the fundamental question, “What is the value of a man’s labor?” A reasonable, thinking person might answer thusly, “The only folks morally entitled to opine, much less vote, as to the value of a man’s labor are that man and his would-be employer.” There are follow-ons to that assertion:

-In a voluntary economy and absent artificial interference, no man is paid any more or any less than his labor is worth.

-Each day a man comes to work, and his employer pays him, constitutes a voluntary agreement between the two as to the value of that man’s labor.

The left cannot seem to grasp that, constantly interfering in the conversation between a man and his prospective employer. Their latest meddling involves what we like to refer to as the “gig economy,” folks working as independent contractors for a variety of reasons and a variety of work circumstances freely negotiated with the folks who pay them.

  • Democrat Elitist

    Leftists, forever seeking even more control (and more union voters along the way), have sought to convert independent contractors, such as Uber drivers and independent bloggers/opinion writers, into employees against their will. This, of course, makes the cost of their services prohibitive and brings financial harm to the very people they purport to help.

If that weren’t bad enough, in the name of “compassion” (actually vote buying), the left seeks to forcibly take property from those who have earned it for the sole purpose of handing it to those who have not. Please understand Christian charity is a personal, moral obligation…just not one that should be state-mandated via the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance.

Part of the leftist line is the use of “society” and “government” as synonyms. “Society has a moral obligation to care for the weak,” the mantra goes. I agree. However, society is not the same thing as government. Our society also includes private charity. The circumstances under which a man chooses to work, how he chooses to spend the fruits of that labor, and how he addresses his moral obligation to his fellow man are no business of government. These are where President Trump can do even more good in his second term.

Only by electing a President who will place solid conservative judges on the federal bench at all levels, hopefully even the Supreme Court, can we reverse this insanity. Once we have achieved a critical mass and a solidly conservative High Court, we can start readdressing some of these issues. The Supremes can recognize that only a man and his employer have any business discussing the terms of that employee’s compensation. At that point, we can do away with the opportunity-killing abomination known as “Minimum Wage.”

We can again allow employers and employees to determine the employee’s status…employee or independent contractor. Best of all, the Supreme Court can, through a series of rulings against federally-funded charities, remind us all that there is only one…ONE instance whereby the U.S. Constitution allows a citizen to demand the labor of his fellow citizens against their will…Only One. The first one to get that one right in the comments gets to see all of my articles for free for the next 90 days.


(NOTE: The only instance that I can think of is contained in the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction..” It also adds military service to the exemption of involuntary servitude. Of course, I am no Constitutional scholar, so there may be other instances in which the Constitution allows a citizen to demand the labor of fellow citizens against their will. R. Yates)

[If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to ForeignCorrespondent and tell your friends to subscribe. IT’S FREE! WHAT A DEAL! If you’ve received this from a friend and would like to be added to our distribution list for future blog posts, please enter your email address in the sign-up for notifications box at You can also find my commentaries on Substack at and the American Free News Network at And please feel free to comment. WE LOVE COMMENTS!]


About Ronald E. Yates

Ronald E. Yates is an award-winning author of historical fiction and action/adventure novels, including the popular and highly-acclaimed Finding Billy Battles trilogy. Read More About Ron Here

1 thought on “The Abject Amorality of Democrat Policy”

  1. And then there is our government deciding to give Social Security (money it took from us through mandatory extortion) benefits to individuals who never “contributed” into the fund……


Leave a Comment