Posted on 11/04/2009 5:20:11 AM PST by markomalley
Sir Ian Blair thinks that policing should be run by people like him. Prof David Nutt thinks that drugs policy should be set by people like him. José Manuel Durão Barroso thinks that the EU should be administered by people like him. And, to a large extent, they are getting their way, these apparatchiks.
Britain, even more than other states, is run by and for its standing officials. Our lives are less impacted by the decisions of our MPs or councillors than by those of the Local Education Authority, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Child Support Agency, the Financial Services Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the rest of the unelected functionariat.
The worst of it is that government by quango meets with the noisy approval of many voters. They like the “experts” to be in charge, they say. (If they’re such bloody experts, why have they made such a mess of things?) They fear “politicisation” they say. (Our quangocrats are political – their default setting is well to the Left of any of the main parties – they’re just not elected.)
We now have a situation in which a polical party can effectively be closed down at the whim of the Electoral Commission, and where MPs are more worried about staying on the right side of appointed regulators than about staying on the right side of their electorate. Some democracy!
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Something to be very wary of indeed...
I had a discussion about GW with a university engineering professor. His only defense was the EXPERT at the university was right.....................
Out-f***ing-standing. Daniel Hannon is most excellent. He’s don’t a wonderful job of succinctly identifying a huge liberal pathology.
Argh. Don’t == done
EXPERT:
EX = From (or previously)
(S)PERT = Spurt (to spew)
EX SPERT = Has been under pressure.
All of the ideological error on the left, up to and including the idea of empowering elites to substitute their goals for ours,
stems from the base error of the understanding of the nature of man.
The truth is that mankind is basically flawed, incapable of benign supremacy over his fellow man, and prone to devastating error, corruption and misuse of power.
The left believes the “evolutionary” nature of man - constantly getting better, with some “elite” being further “evolved” than the masses, and therefore capable of making decisions for their fellow man.
The founders understood the truth of the nature of man:
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
—James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
So you think Communism is more about altruism than power?
So you think Communism is more about altruism than power?
Depends on who you’re talking about that is supporting communism.
The elitists that seek power in a collectivist system are all about control. Many honestly believe they know better than everyone else, and thus have the duty and the right to make decisions for everyone else. They LIKE the power to do so.
Those who excuse and support them (sheep collectivists) also believe that the leadership is “the elite” and will make better decisions than the general masses. There are far more likely to be idealists than control freaks among this group than among the self styled “ruling class”.
But, regardless, support for “elite rule” is based on the most basic error/lie about the nature of mankind.
We are in agreement. Our issue is one of semantics.
There are many “useful idiots”, or idealists, who fall for the rhetoric of the power seekers. They support the moral-sounding goals of the Left but are too timid or ignorant to question the inefficiency of the delivery system - government. They also don’t trust the rest of us to agree with their goals or to do our part to support them. Therefore, their ideals must have the force of law behind them to make us comply.
The power seekers, the minority, skillfully exploit our values to trick those people into supporting them.
My opinion: we’re about to replay the Glorious Revolution, and the writer is correct - we are in the fight for our lives between those who think the state should have a “divine” right to do what it wants while being led by an educated elite, and those who think that the state should be limited and ruled by the consent of the governed.
A civil war among the upper classes, then. PBS vs. Rush. Obama vs. Palin. The Times vs. The Wall Street Journal. In other words, not as bloody or cruel as the War Between the States, unless you’re in the wrong place (like Belfast). At the end of the Glorious Revolution, the winners emerged with a concept called a Bill of Rights. May we be as fortunate fighting our own entrenched royalty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.