Cannibalism is the act or practice of members feeding off other members of the same species. With few exceptions, humankind has evolved beyond this barbaric practice, at least in its commonly understood form. To civilized societies, the practice of devouring one’s own species is uncivilized and abhorrent. It is an image that all should find gruesome and repulsive…but do they?

Humankind’s historical, social and political evolution should have taught us much, but in spite of the multitude of examples that preceded we have chosen to reach back in mankind’s historical past and adopt as our social compact a new form of cannibalization, albeit less severe than the common garden variety of cannibalism.

Nonetheless, it is cannibalism, not of the body, but of our neighbor’s possessions.

This modern version is political and social cannibalism. It is the civilized version; refined, subtle, and always for a good purpose…even for the victim.

Political and social cannibalism utilizes the same defining characteristic of the traditional cannibalism: members feeding off other members of the same society.

Where cannibals once physically devoured their victims in whole, leaving nothing but a few scraps for the vultures, political and social cannibalism chooses instead to leech onto his victims with an attachment that is virtually an inescapable bond that increasingly bleeds them slowly and carefully to avoid killing the “golden goose.”

As history has shown, once the masses discover how easy it is to cannibalize their fellow citizen, an insatiable appetite develops between them and their political enablers.

The accumulated history of civilizations coupled with the observable behavior of humankind should have taught us something about the immutable dictates of human nature. Rather than learning from example, we have chosen to ignore history and observation as if they are aberrations, unique to their time and place in history, but not relevant to modern times or circumstances and our worldly advances.

Somehow, a conclusion has been reached that human nature can be ignored, overridden, or changed, and we can act against our fellow man and he will not respond as nature has dictated since his arrival upon this earth.

We have not learned is that human nature is immutable, that it has not changed, nor can we change it, either by force or seduction.

The founding fathers understood human nature. They understood that virtue is an ideal, not a commodity, and self-discipline, while laudatory in theory lacked the external influence necessary to add order.

In their wisdom, the architects of our founding constructed a social compact, the Constitution, a contract between people establishing a government and detailing their relationship between “the people” and their government.

The Founders understood all too well human nature and man’s penchant for “mischievousness” no matter how well intentioned his effort. They understood that some men when entrusted with the reins of power could not be left to their own discipline, but must be restrained by law. Thus, they limited government’s ability to act, no matter how needed, benevolent or well intentioned some in government thought the action was needed.

As Madison wrote, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” From this understanding, the Founders limited the ability of their fellow man, acting through the government to govern their fellow man. They understood that no man is as dangerous as a man who, in his own mind, has a vision of an ideal world, and is given the power to enact that vision.

They also understood the basic nature of government, its characteristics, purpose, and relationship between it and the people.

As an example, they understood that the government had no resources of its own and in order for a government to function in any capacity it had to take a portion of the people’s property. In response, they granted certain limited powers to the government in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution known as the “enumerated powers”.

The leading paragraph of that Section contains the caveat that the Congress could only act “for the general welfare of the United States .” There has been much debate on what exactly the term “general welfare” means, and what limits, if any, it places on the government. For an understanding of what “general welfare” means two approaches are relevant. First, the historical record, and second the effect.

Madison wrote of “the government of the United States is a definite government….” He noted the difference between the Federal and State governments with the Federal government “confined to specified objects” and it was “not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” He stated clearly that, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

This is the understanding of the Founders when they authored, debated, and adopted the Constitution. It is also the understanding of the States when they voted to ratify the Constitution.

Later, Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution, wrote in 1833 that, “The state governments have a full superintendence and control over the immense mass of local interests of their respective states, which connect themselves with the feelings, the affections, the municipal institutions, and the internal arrangements of the whole population. They possess, too, the immediate administration of justice in all cases, civil and criminal, which concern the property, personal rights, and peaceful pursuits of their own citizens.”

More importantly, the Founders knew the importance of a government being impartial and universal, which it could not be if it acted for any purpose, no matter how compassionate, other than “for the general welfare….” Without limiting the government’s ability to act only on behalf of all the people, the government would soon descend into a battle of “factions” as Madison described it that would pit citizen against citizen, and State against State as happened under the Articles of Confederation.

Although corrected within the Constitution, somewhere along the judicial review process, the Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of the “General Welfare Clause” giving it a meaning that is antithetical to what the Founders wanted and what they knew was essential to the preservation of the Union .

The unintended consequence of the Court’s enlightened rulings has been to virtually remove all constitutional limitations on the power of government and has opened the door to virtually unlimited congressional actions, actions that are not found anywhere within the body of the Constitution.

Political and social cannibalism, thanks to the inventive logic of the Supreme Court, was born.

What was once an unthinkable concept, taking one person’s property and giving it to another, is now not only the norm, but expected. Consider this election cycle. What candidate is campaigning to protect the people’s property and freedom?

None, not even the Republican candidate John McCain.

Instead, all offer programs that will take more from the people, and promise to redistribute to other people under the guise if “fairness” or “equality” or some other salable reasoning.

Thus, as this election cycle clearly demonstrates, we have reached the point where political and social cannibalism is not the exception, but the norm.

The important question is how long can we can survive feeding off each other.