Countries run more efficiently when there is less government intervention. Government certainly has its role in providing a strong military, adequate border defense, police and fire protection, and education.

Unfortunately, government intervention in the free market has caused, again and again, more harm than good. And government has now become a Hydra that we fail to legally slay. Voting in a new government has been discouraging; it is now impossible to rid ourselves of the encroaching octopus with sharped-edged suckers.

Contrary to economic laissez faire, President Bush said in 2008, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." In other words, because his administration attempted unsuccessfully to reign in the Democrats with their entitlement plans to lend money for homes to people who could not afford them and then disabled regulations that would have checked bank loans and mortgages, he had to prop up the too-big-to-fail bankers, whose bankruptcy would have sent painful shockwaves around the world and would have upset the crony capitalists. The taxpayers were forced to the rescue.

The non-stop tirade of the "rich do not pay their fair share" and "you did not build that" began the vilification of small and large businessmen, followed by the marginalization and destruction of the middle class, the very geese that lay the golden eggs. The government nanny must be in total control of every facet of our lives.

Productivity, the industrial revolution, manufacturing are better left to other parts of the world. The new global order dictates that we must now be a service society, government-catering to the "hope and change" new citizens coming from far-flung corners of the illiterate, third-world kingdom.

You can't make a "living wage" at your minimum-wage job? It's the fault of the rich! You vote for a living, stay on welfare, have out-of-wedlock babies, drop anchor-babies, and keep bringing in the flotsam of the world to replace the millions of babies aborted since Roe v. Wade. Make sure you vote into office the same corrupt politicians that keep you perennially poor under the guise of protection; you are dumb enough after graduating from a Common Core school to believe that it's the fault of the rich who keep you "down."

Do you accept any personal responsibility for your boorish behavior, drug use, lack of motivation, poor education, sloth, and lack of job skills? Nanny government tells you it is not your fault; you are entitled to the wealth of the rich. And when the rich run out of money, because socialists always run out of other people's money, they can fleece the middle class, people who worked hard for a living, got an education, and paid taxes.

Today's rich pay taxes to support the government and the welfare state. The rich of long ago, after taxation, even though still wealthy, did not enjoy the comforts that you have in your alleged poverty of today. In the winter of 1695, when the climate change industry did not exist, the wine at the palace of Versailles froze in the fancy goblets at King Louis XIV's table. Even in the nineteenth century America, the ink froze in the inkwells in winter time, that's how cold and miserable life was.

The Pennsylvania legislature almost destroyed George Washington's army quartered at Valley Forge. The government decided to try price controls on commodities that were needed by Washington's army. No farmer with a large family to support was dumb enough to sell their produce at controlled prices when the British were paying in gold. The army almost starved to death in the winter of 1777-1778. The unwise government price controls brought the army to its knees.

Government does not believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand"—there is no such thing, as people, by pursuing their own self-interest, are led by an invisible hand to promote the well-being of the community. The government must intervene because they know best.

If government does not dictate every last rule and regulation in great detail--how much and what we can eat, what we can drink, how much salt we can ingest, what doctors we can see, what homes we can live in, what cars we can drive, how much electricity we use, how much water we can have, what crops to plant--we are doomed to failure.

To avoid massive voter fraud, by the time the drive for a national "voter" I.D. becomes reality, we will all be chipped and the government will know where we are at all times, just like dogs and cats.

Government intervention to slay the war on poverty has perpetuated and deepened poverty after spending trillions of dollars. In spite of Affirmative Action programs and other wealth redistribution schemes aimed at destroying social injustice, people are still differently-abled by birth; some like to work more than others; some are risk takers and others are comfortable in their status-quo; some like to work the night shift while others like no shift at all--they are happy with government handouts; some like to go to school and learn new things, while others enjoy partying and living it up; some don't stay on any job long enough to get work experience—why try if welfare is literally forced upon the sloth and unmotivated; some have inherited wealth that must be confiscated for the common good; others who built an enterprise did not really build that, it just happened by magic--it came via the public roads; and others were just plain lucky and thus do not deserve the fruits of their labor.

Keynesian economists have been telling us for decades that "America has more income inequality than other wealthy nations" and this miscalculated inequality "has been on the rise in the last 25 years." But none of these calculations include welfare, free medical care, WIC, and other similar programs. They are strictly looking at income disparities born by many factors connected to lacking personal responsibility, education, and the dissolution of the family.

You can tweak statistics to prove whatever you set out to prove so calculations of this "inequality" does not include the many financial dependency programs currently in place. According to the U.S. Census, there are over "100 million Americans who receive at least one welfare program run by the federal government and it does include Social Security and Medicare."

Even Keynesian economists admit that policies that redistribute wealth or income reduce the rewards of high income earners, raising the rewards of low-income earners, thus reducing the incentive to earn high income. We trade economic efficiency for equality and create a nation of dependents who would rather stay home and draw benefits from those who still work.

It is a fact that 70 percent of all government spending involves programs that create government dependence. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 60 percent of all U.S. households get more transfer payments than they pay in taxes. "Terrence P. Jeffrey calculated that 86 million Americans work full-time in the private sector while 148 million Americans receive benefits from the government."

Education was, for many generations a way out of poverty when the family was intact. But when the family unit was destroyed by a government that stepped in as the daddy for generations of fatherless children, college costs escalated, and professional jobs were shipped overseas at an alarming rate—it was hard to sell education anymore. Government and Democrats advocated spending more money on pre-school programs and on inner-city children, but the results were dismal. And the uneducated adults could not be lifted out of poverty; they remained on inter-generational government dole.

We have certainly tried for generations to alleviate poverty through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed forms of discrimination in rates of pay and hiring standards and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Equal pay for equal work was a daunting, if not impossible, parameter because we are different in our ability, education, experience, etc. Affirmative action stepped in with hiring quotas for minorities and females.

The problem was that many who were given this preferential treatment over other hires were really less qualified or not qualified at all. They were expected to learn on the job. Critics argued that numerical quotas and compulsory hiring of unqualified workers was certainly a problem in many professions, including the field of education. Replacing qualified "white males" with "other, less qualified workers" was certainly counterproductive and inefficient. Proponents of quotas countered that it was necessary to redress past wrongs, especially slavery. "Putting more women and members of minority groups into high-paying jobs would certainly make the income distribution more equal," affirmative action supporters argued.

Today, the important economic balance of efficiency over equality is completely discounted by Democrats and their supporters who are arguing for a complete replacement of the free market system with socialism on the ideological belief that everything white men have accomplished has been tinged with racism, bigotry, and inequality and only adopting the Marxist ideology would redress that problem. Certainly these Democrats have not studied the recent case of Venezuela and its economic woes resulting from a full-blown socialist poverty state established by the late Hugo Chavez.

There is a lot to be said about government control from cradle to grave. A population fully dependent on an omnipotent government is easier to control in a high-rise city dwelling setting than spread out over miles on the land. And when government runs out of other people's money, it will have to scale back and possibly withdraw the largesse to the generationally dependent.

The free market mechanism is efficient, but it does not promote the total equality desired by Marxist supporters. Such equality must be achieved by force, by government fiat, redistributing to the world the "unjust and unearned income and wealth" of billions of enterprising people. When that is achieved, we will have reached Orwellian utopia.

Lucky for us, total government control works because they know what is best for us – nuclear armament of Iran, our sworn enemy, and a peaceful invasion with illegal immigrants brought from third world nations that will quietly complete the fundamental transformation of our expansionist evil empire into a malleable tin pot dictatorship.

We will be turned into an irrelevant impoverished nation as envisioned by the Washington political elites, a nation ruled by a one-party government that worships primitive cultures and obedient welfare-dependent subjects and favors global economic de-development.

The low information voters and welfare recipients will be satisfied with a minimum, grateful that the "man" sends them a check every month in exchange for nothing. The fact that governments do not produce anything of value seems to escape their understanding and, without the hard labor of many, their undeserved and unearned "entitlements" would not arrive promptly every month.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.