It is most troubling that the only prescription for change in the government is the ballot box. In that we have a representative style of government as opposed to a democracy - of the sort established in Rome - we are dependent upon the character of those we elect.
Why should expect the systems of government to control and limit themselves? They cannot. The natural tension that ought to exist between government and society has become politicized. Because society is at war with itself government has taken over that which it rightfully should not govern.
Government authority over civil matters is predicated upon an unwillingness of the citizenry to trust themselves. We do not trust ourselves to educate our young, so we create vast bloated government bureaucracies to do it badly for us.
We obliterate personal responsibility by acceding to government authority over the most minute elements of our lives. Laws and regulations have replaced kindness and decency. We turn to the courts to impose civility because we are incapable of civil discourse.
We have fallen into the Marxist trap of believing that we can legislate our way into decent society. There is no more dangerous premise than that government can enforce civilization. It cannot.
The most horrible, murderous and uncivilized reigns of terror in human history occured in the 20th century. They were all perpetrated by governments with absolute authority, in the name of creating civil society.
What government does best is enforce its will upon its citizenry. Which is precisely why the most effective tool of government is the military and why the military must never be activated within our borders against our citizens, especially during civil unrest. Now, there is a condition to which those in authority in government will never accede.
YHAOS, I appreciated your reference to me as Mr. Paine. Amos was a prophet who railed against his people during a time of luxury and ease. They had forgotten their covenant with God. Paine's voice railed against the complacency with which his people accepted simple tyrannies. Two very different times. One common message.
I am suddenly struck by the importance of what we are doing. There has not been a time before this when the common citizenry could speak and be heard. No, that is not true. When society was smaller there were other effective means of communicating. We have developed a tool that gives us that same ability. Evolution does, after all, occur by intelligent design, or, at least, by intentional design.
Thank you for the post. You are a luminary.
=======================================
It is most troubling that the only prescription for change in the government is the ballot box.
What? What would you have then? A monarchy-- a system of government based on a genetic lottery? Or the "endless revolution" as preached by Mao at the height of the Cultural Revolution, and practiced by Latin America?
In that we have a representative style of government as opposed to a democracy - of the sort established in Rome - we are dependent upon the character of those we elect.
As I'm sure others will be quick(er) to point out, we ave in this country a Democratic Republic: we (the people) elected for a set period of time(the "democracy" part) those who would serve as our representatives (the republic part) in the seat(s) of power, be they state, federal, local, city, school board, whatever. The elected are responsible and answerable to those that elected them (the democratic republic part), and are in power for only a set period of time. As far as ancient democracy I think you have mistaken Rome for Athens. I do not believe there were any election --of any real importance -- after Cesar, et. al.
Why should expect the systems of government to control and limit themselves? They cannot. The natural tension that ought to exist between government and society has become politicized.
IMHO this "natural tension" is -- at the very heart of it -- the human spirit rebelling against constrains placed upon it by those in power (however they got there).
If I may explain myself a bit further: The original and most basic Society, Government, call-it-what-you-will was not imposed from the top down, but rose instead from the bottom up. Why? Because right up there along with food,water,air and a mate, people need stability and the safety that comes with it -- for however brief a time. The government (is supposed to) provides that...and yet, being human, there is something inside of us all -- our "inner child" if you will, or more likely our "inner punk teenager" -- that rebells at restraint, even if we know the restraint is for our own good, i.e. we know wearing a seat belt is a good idea but we still get ticked off is we get a ticket; we know wearing a sweater on an over cast, windy day is a good idea but we still hate being told having our spouse, parent, sibling, anyone tell us so. Given these all too human responses, if it any wonder there is a "...natural tension between government and society..."? As for this natural tension being "politicized" I think a lot depends on how and who is defining the word.
Government authority over civil matters is predicated upon an unwillingness of the citizenry to trust themselves...
Oh, quite the opposite! It's not that we do not trust ourselves to educate our children, build bridges and dams, etc. it is b/c we do not trust others If we have indeed created a "...vast bloated government bureaucracies to do it badly for us..." It is b/c we have been led to believe in theory and/or learned by unfortunate example that the game must have rules, and that the rules must be codified, organized and enforced by an ideally disinterested third party.
We obliterate personal responsibility by acceding to government authority over the most minute elements of our lives. Laws and regulations have replaced kindness and decency.
That is b/c in this world laws and regulations can/should be depended on; the same can not be said for "kindness and decency".
The most horrible, murderous and uncivilized reigns of terror in human history occured in the 20th century....
Here too I must disagree, for do not make the mistake of comparing lack of technology with lack of blood lust. If the French Revolution "Terror" killed "only" 1500+ in Paris during its most bloody week it was only b/c they lacked the technology to kill more, not b/c they didn't want to kill more. The same can be said about the Muslim invasion into India in the 12th century. The invaders didn't kill as many Hindu as Hitler killed Jews, but they killed as many as they possibly could; and they would have (killed as many as H.) if they could have possessed the same technology. The same thing can be said about Attila the Hun: he didn't kill as many as Pol Pot, but he killed as many as he could.
What government does best is enforce its will upon its citizenry.
For the benefit, as well as hindrance, of the citizenry.
Which is precisely why the most effective tool of government is the military and why the military must never be activated within our borders against our citizens, especially during civil unrest.
If not in time of civil unrest, then when? And do not get seduced in to absolutes. American citizenship does not conifer sainthood along with it. While we are a good and great people, there is no denying we have a rotten apple or two among us.