Jim Cardoza

This presidential election has become, among other things, a referendum on the American Dream. Will the American Dream continue to be defined in terms of limitless individual opportunity, or will it simply become a government mandate to buy one citizen a home with another citizen's money?

The American Dream has traditionally referred to the economic environment created by the dynamics of liberty. In this environment, those seeking a better life have been free to soar as high as their skills, determination and efforts can take them.

The opportunities that such an environment affords have made America the mecca for liberty-loving immigrants throughout the world. Gower Juna, an immigrant from Uganda, eloquently explains the story of millions, telling us how he came to our country with virtually nothing and, over time, built a rich, fulfilling life for his family.

But, that notion may give way to what Barack Obama refers to as the promise of America. In a speech promising creation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Obama said this, "I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. That’s the promise we need to keep. . . . individual responsibility and mutual responsibility.”

It should be pointed out that John McCain has supported the lame notion that taxpayers should absorb some of the losses of those who can't or won't pay the loans they secured. But, McCain’s saving grace is that, unlike Obama, he makes clear this move would be a one-time shot, not a fundamental instrument essential to a long advocated social change.

Despite his stated beliefs in “mutual responsibility” and wealth redistribution, Obama balks at being labeled a "socialist. It is not that the dictionary definition doesn't fit, Barack just finds folks respond better to the sugarcoated phrase, "economic justice."

For the term "justice" to have any real meaning in the Obama context, one must shuck the idea of "equal under the eyes of the law," and replace it with the notion that a handful of political creatures, unselfishly acting in your behalf, will, through the use of their limitless wisdom, make life fair. Toward this end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stand at the ready to serve you.

The dynamics set into motion whenever such an experiment in central planning is launched have been well documented by history. Incentives to produce dwindle in direct proportion to one's diminished ability to improve their life. What motivation is there to work hard, when such efforts have no effect on your family's quality of life?

The concept of socialism, or economic justice, is widely taught in our schools as the natural evolution of a compassionate society. Politicians like to peddle the notion as a means of achieving fairness or equality. But, it never works out that way---unless making everyone equally poor was the goal. The whole scheme is nothing more than using Peter's money to buy Paul's vote.

Those duped into investing in the moral stance of socialism should consider the following. If I stick a gun in your ribs and demand your money, I have clearly committed theft. Yet, a socialist will perpetrate that same act and, merely because a politician is substituted for the gun, claim moral high ground. The fact is, the act is identical, only the legal status changed.

Free market economics, or voluntary exchange, is the exact opposite of socialism. It is a system in complete accord with the principles of liberty. Free markets encourage cooperation, risk-taking and innovation, while rewarding success and achievement.

No matter how selfish their motive, players in the free market must serve their fellow man with products and services so valuable, customers will willingly exchange their money. In order for any transaction to occur, it must be seen as mutually beneficial. The typical result is to satisfy the parties involved.

By contrast, when politicians and bureaucrats make decisions in our behalf, as socialists advocate, another set of dynamics come in to play. Since bureaucrats are not dealing with their own money, there is little motivation to get value for the dollars they spend. And, with decision makers largely insulated from the consequences of their actions, our satisfaction with the transactions they make in our behalf become hardly a consideration at all.

The temptation may be strong to accept the popular class warfare notions promoted by pandering politicians and their relentless media allies---that the rich attained their wealth by exploiting the poor. It then follows that unless we empower a modern day Robin Hood, individuals have no chance at prosperity.

But, citizens beware. While Robin Hood was a community organizer of sorts, he was a fierce enemy of the tyrants atop a powerful, central government. While Barack Obama wants you to believe that he is a new Robin Hood, a close inspection of his beliefs show a far greater resemblance to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Economic liberty is a fundamental element of political liberty. It is the cornerstone principle from which the American Dream has been built. By trading it in for a false and immoral view of fairness, Americans will do nothing short of squandering their precious right to self-determination.