“The 10 most dangerous words in the English language,” Reagan said on another occasion, “are ‘Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ”
As Hobbes could have told him, in reality the 10 scariest words are, “There is no government and I’m here to kill you.”
Well Hobbes had his point; we do need a government large enough to protect us from the dregs of society that would kill us and take our stuff.
However we do not want what we are seeing more and more of today; a government that comes to us and says give me your stuff or I will jail you.
So what Reagan said was true and another way Reagan could have said it was. “The 11 most dangerous words in the English language, are “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to Kill you.”
Government is often either too large or too small and the tendency is to grow too large. Those in power almost always desire more power and therefore constantly push for more power.
I don’t think anyone on this thread has read the article in its intirety or understands the author’s point.
What the author is trying to point out is that wars lead to larger states that control the murderous inclinations of men and tribes. Before there were Nation States there were City States that were frequently at war with one another (read your Old Testament). Through war city states formed nation states which gave us broader areas of peace.
Great periods of human advancement occurred after periods of prolonged expansion of great powers for example Pax Romana and Pax Britannia.
The author’s larger point is that the world needs a country large enough and powerful enough (economically, politically and militarily) to enforce international trade rules and enforce a modicum of world peace.
First there was Rome then there was Great Britain and finally there was the United States. Unfortunately expanding socialism has nearly neutered the United States. And possibly the final nail in our coffin may be driven by a president that views the US as an evil colonial power that must be subdued for the sake of impoverished third world nations that are taken advantage of by the US.
Another point the author makes is that the great powers that enforce free trade inevitably build up the subject nations by trading with them.
All of these things suggest that war over the long view have been beneficial by expanding the geographical size of governments and freeing trade among people.
Thanks, a good point. Still, coming from the Washington Post, it appears that the false dichotomy being presented is between Attila and Obama.
“And possibly the final nail in our coffin may be driven by a president that views the US as an evil colonial power that must be subdued for the sake of impoverished third world nations that are taken advantage of by the US.”
Or there will be a war and the obozo side will lose;).
Minor point of order. It's seldom an individual that does all that killing, it's usually a vast bureaucracy, a conspiracy of paper pushers and appeasers who do the thousands of little mundane details that insure that everything ins in place, all the t's are crossed, the i's dotted, the trains move the victims to the right camps, the showers have enough Zyklon, the front lines have beans and bullets, all the right forms, and all the right people live and the wrong ones die. It's the neighbors who under government orders watch and report, who never dare interfere, the teachers and preachers who assure their charges that this is all right and proper, just as they were told, or else.
No. The most dangerous words aren't: "Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to Kill you.”
They are: “Hi, we're from the government, and we're here to kill you.”
I understood the author’s point. I just disagree with it.