Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sola Veritas
I was talking about the government we have, not what it should be.

Government, as viewed by the founders, governed best when it governed least.

The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.

Power corrupts, and our Federal Government has hoodwinked, swindled, and outright usurped far too much of the power which rightfully belongs to the several States and the people.

The less it decides for the individual, the better, and the less expensive it will be--both in terms of Rights and treasure.

People today put up with so much petty tyranny, they don't know what freedom is--not the freedom from responsibility, but the freedom to be responsible, unfettered by bureaucratic chains.

Ideally, as written, our government would be moral and just, and follow the Judeo/Christian ethos.

I, too, want government to safeguard my rights, not deprive me of them under colour of law.

The latter is what has been happening as the Government has grown, and the only way to reclaim those Rights is to shrink Government, both in size and scope.

106 posted on 11/13/2012 7:36:20 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: Smokin' Joe

“The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.”

I disagree strongly. NEVER in the COTUS did the founders remotely guarantee a Right to Privacy....the idiot arguements of Roe V Wade.

Also, you cannot convince me that the Founders ever intended immoral behavior (like homosexuality between “conscenting adults”) to be protected by privacy.

The best one can argue is that they felt state or local government could best handle this. However, what if they don’t? The Founders would NEVER have allowed a State like Nevada to have legal prositution.

Libertarian reasoning is terribly flawed and based upon a total misunderstanding of what was intened by those that ratified the constitution. They would NEVER have agreed with the Libertarian sophistry of “two consenting adults”...NEVER EVER. It just wasn’t in the mental make up of the people at the time. Even the irreligious would not expect their vices to be “legal.”

In a perfect world where the people were inately moral, and thus self policing, a need for laws to restrain their behavior would not be necessary. That is NOT the case these days and has not been for decades...probably almost a century.

Government is ALWAYS necessary. In principle I agree the smaller the better. However, I am realistic in knowing people MUST be restrained by law. States cannot be trusted to do so anymore. For that matter, a state can sometimes be more draconian than the federal government. A state or local government can oppress just as much a federal one can.


112 posted on 11/13/2012 5:32:10 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson