Posted on 01/09/2005 6:10:27 PM PST by NMC EXP
Sound wisdom.
Likewise,
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction".
~GK Chesterton
or
"No wafflin' allowed"
~IOTN
One of my favorites.
Is there any politician who doesn't believe in limited government?
I can't think of any. ;-)
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
-- H.L. Mencken
This essay sounded strangley like Ayn Rand, and then when I got to the quote, I was right. I also just read Atlas Shrugged like a week ago. GREAT BOOK!
How many voters do you know who don't believe in government?
How many voters do you know who don't believe in limited government?
Once again, I can't think of any. ;-)
What about me? Wait, I'm not old enough to vote quite yet...
I'm a bit dense and am not really sure where you are going with this but as to:
"How many voters do you know who don't believe in limited government? "
I would guess that maybe 1% of those eligible to vote actually know what limited govt means.
The central theme is outstanding. I could have done with less romance.
You should read Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness".
Neither is acceptable. Either give us our pudding untainted, or we will replace you with someone who can.
Well, I would guess that just about every one of them believes like you do - that they know what limited government means.
And, I just think that it's important to occasionally remind myself how much we all have in common. We nearly all agree in government, that it should perform certain functions and we nearly all agree that government should be limited, that that it shouldn't perform other functions.
When we do disagree, we disagree about what functions we would like to see government perform and what functions we do not want to see government to perfom. When those differences are peaceably resolved, they are usually resolved by compromise. ;-)
The definition of limited govt in the US is not some floating abstraction. It is clearly spelled out by the Constitution.
The problem is not making compromises on Constitutional issues. The problem is that the Constitution itself has been compromised down to it's foundation.
I would guess that maybe 1% of those eligible to vote actually know what limited govt means.
I would say that the majority of the population favors expansion of any program or service that benefits them and reduction of any program or service that does not benefit them. For example, the biggest welfare handout in this country is Medicare and the second is Social Security. An 85-year-old racking up big medical bills may look down her nose at welfare recipients, but does not consider herself a welfare recipient. After all, she and her late husband "paid" into SS, even if what they and their employers paid was exhausted a long time ago.
The problem is not making compromises on Constitutional issues. The problem is that the Constitution itself has been compromised down to it's foundation.
Our Constitution was not designed to be a prescription for the proper role of government in general. As originally drafted, it pertained almost exclusively to the role of only one level of government - the Federal government. It was drafted by a process that included extensive debate and many, many compromises. It also included the provisions for amendment that invited further debates, further compromises, and change.
The continuing willingness of most of us to publicly negotiate, debate, compromise, persuade (and be persuaded) is what keeps this system moving forward. Considering the options, I think it's a pretty good system. ;-)
Isn’t abdicating the power of retaliatory use of force a “compromise of individual rights”? After all I can’t legally beat up the guy that stole my silverware.
So we authorize governments to be the sole arbitrator of who’s been wronged and what their punishment should be. What would be the alternative? Some anacho-capitalist vision of everyone with their own private armies extracting justice. That’s not what Ayn Rand promoted. So didn’t she promote “compromise between freedom and government controls”?
Abdicate is a strong word. I believe 'delegate' is more appropriate in this case. Govt is "society's agency of arrest and restraint". However, the Constitution did not remove your right to self defense.
The fact that laws have been created which punish honest people who defend their lives and property when govt agents are not around is a different story entirely.
The Constitution does not deny the right of self defense. Bad "law" does.
An-caps believe in no govt and private law enforcement based entirely on voluntary association. Rand was a minarchist and believed in limited govt.
True enough and its adoption did involve extensive debate and it contains an ammendment provision. In an ideal world the amendments following the BOR would not violate the Constitution and BOR.
Let me ask you relating to the central point of the essay - do you have any principles on which you are unwilling to compromise? If so what are they?
You talk about "moving forward" (an abuse of the language by the way) via compromise. The majority of federal laws passed since FDR's reign are un-Constitutional. The fedgov passes a lot of laws and regulations. Do you count that as progress when in most cases liberty is reduced and taxes go up?
I think that I no more ‘ delegate’ the authority to use retaliatory force than I ‘contribute’ to the IRS. Both imply that I was free to make the decision. But long before most people decided either were a good idea, they were forced to abdicate that decision to the democratic process and government.
Retaliatory force picks up where self defense stops. We have the right to shoot an intruder, but not after following him home.
Rand was in favor of that, and I don’t see anything unique that separates that abdication of freedom from another that’s just a little more (or less) essential or controversial. And if that’s true, then it looks like a compromise to me.
I’m not trying to do a “gotcha” or attack Rand or Objectivism. I’m in dept to her for my way of thinking. But I think that her philosophy has a few “weak” spots like this that prevents it from being the best one for me.
I have yet to find a philosophy without weak spots.
The conundrums -
(1) You and I did not vote on the Constitution but there it is. Of course if states were still sovereign maybe we could move to a state with a climate more to our liking. As it is now there ain't no place to run, ain't no place to hide - federal uniformity coast to coast. And secession? Abe Lincoln deleted that option.
(2) Minarchy - the Constitution was being violated almost before the ink was dry. Why? because men have weaknesses, greed and powerlust mostly therefore limited govt is doomed to fail eventually. It is a natural progression.
(3) An-cap - the first an-cap contracts would be violated almost before the ink was dry. Why? because men have weaknesses, greed and powerlust mostly therefore an-cap is doomed to fail eventually. It is a natural progression.
Conclusion - We are well and truly screwed. I am starting to believe Claire Wolfe has the right idea. Hunker down, educate you children, be as self sufficent as possible, maintain a low profile and wait for the Leviathan to collapse of it's own weight. Then come out and start over again. Maybe posterity would have 100 years or so of decent life before it went to hell in a bucket again.
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.