Posted on 01/04/2002 5:34:10 AM PST by tberry
The Myth of 'Limited Government'
by Joseph Sobran
We are taught that the change from monarchy to democracy is progress; that is, a change from servitude to liberty. Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens.
But we are taught that this condition is liberty, because "we" are – freely – taxing "ourselves." The individual, as a member of a democracy, is presumed to consent to being taxed and otherwise forced to do countless things he hasn’t chosen to do (or forbidden to do things he would prefer not to do).
Whence arises the right of a ruler to compel? This is a tough one, but modern rulers have discovered that a plausible answer can be found in the idea of majority rule. If the people rule themselves by collective decision, they can’t complain that the government is oppressing them. This notion is summed up in the magic word "democracy."
It’s nonsense. "We" are not doing it to "ourselves." Some people are still ruling other people. "Democracy" is merely the pretext for authorizing this process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled. Since outright slavery has been discredited, "democracy" is the only remaining rationale for state compulsion that most people will accept.
Now comes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, to explode the whole idea that there can ever be a just state. And he thinks democracy is worse than many other forms of government. He makes his case in his new book Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
Hoppe is often described as a libertarian, but it might be more accurate to call him a conservative anarchist. He thinks the state – "a territorial monopoly of compulsion" – is inherently subversive of social health and order, which can thrive only when men are free.
As soon as you grant the state anything, Hoppe argues, you have given it everything. There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power).
We’ve tried. We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn’t work. Over time the government claimed the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, then proceeded to broaden its own powers ad infinitum and to strip the states of their original powers – while claiming that its self-aggrandizement was the fulfillment of the "living" Constitution. So the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!
The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation. But the Civil War established the fatal principle that no state could withdraw, for any reason. So the states and the people lost their ultimate defense against Federal tyranny. (And if they hadn’t, there would still have been the problem of the tyranny of individual states.) But today Americans have learned to view the victory of the Union over the states, which meant an enormous increase in the centralization of power, as a triumph of "democracy."
Hoppe goes so far as to say that democracy is positively "immoral," because "it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C." He argues that monarchy is actually preferable, because a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name "Clinton" may ring a bell here.)
And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents. By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.
Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.
January 4, 2001
Actually all of your comments must be jokes. But what could one expect from someone who has little historical knowledge.
There are a few “dirty little secret(s) underneath” the Hamiltonian world view, as well. Michael Lind (himself a devotee of Hamilton) admits in his 1997 Hamilton’s Republic:
“By the early twentieth century, the success of the Hamiltonian program for government-sponsored industrial modernization posed new problems for government, including widening class divisions and the unchecked political power of the new national and multinational corporations...Republican Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Croly...believed that creative measures were necessary to deal with the problems...The answer of the Populist Democrats, who found a champion in William Jennings Bryan, was to use government in order to protect and preserve a small-town, rural America...Another prescription for curing the ills of the industrial age was provided by socialists...[who] were reconciled to the industrial age; they simply wanted industrialism without capitalists...
“Roosevelt was not a socialist; his solution was not to eliminate capital, but to tame and regulate it so that it could coexist harmoniously with labor...”
In other words, problems created by Hamiltonian “government-sponsored” activities are apparently best solved by yet more government regulations and additional government interference (producing yet more "government-sponsored" problems? ;>). One apparently is expected to respond to the faults of Hamilton’s system by perpetuating and expanding it...
The paleolibs talk up Jefferson, John Randolph and John Taylor, but they were theorists of self-reliant agrarianism. It's been statesmen like Hamilton and Lincoln who created capitalist market-oriented America, and warriors like Matthew Perry (to name the most benign case) who built the international free market.
Mr. Lind also makes the following astute observation:
“The disagreement between the two great American traditions can be summed up thus: Hamiltonians are more afraid of the world than of their own government, while Jeffersonians are more afraid of their own government than the world.”
'Do the math' - count the bodies. The genocidal track record of many twentieth-century governments with regard to their own citizens suggests that the Jeffersonians were 'on to something'...
There are some good things to be said for the agrarians, but they point anywhere but in the capitalist direction. Rockwellism means having it both ways: enjoying the society created by the Hamiltons and Lincolns, while condemning them for not following the narrow path dictated by theoretical speculation.
Actually, attempting to promote “the society created by the Hamiltons and Lincolns” while failing to acknowledge the contributions of the greatest Hamiltonian presidents of the twentieth century implies an interest in “having it both ways.” Mr. Lind suggests that these latter presidents include “[Franklin] Roosevelt, Truman, [and] Lyndon Johnson:”
“Indeed, a case can be made that Johnson’s accomplishment was even greater than FDR’s. Of FDR’s reforms, only Social Security remains unchallenged...Far more of Johnson’s Great Society programs remain popular...”
The “accomplishment(s)” of Hamiltonian Democrats like FDR and LBJ can hardly be classified as “theoretical speculation:” we must be careful not to to ignore their 'popular reforms'...
;>)
I suppose T. Roosevelt was closer to the Hamiltonian view during his presidency, but into his ex-presidency he left Hamilton for Croly (who wrote in 1909, after Roosevelt left office). Henceforth, and outside of tarrifs, Roosevelt had little to do with Hamilton. I suppose there is a correlation between government "promotion" and "regulation" of industries, but not much more. Hamilton's promotion certainly included monetary policy, tariff protection, and canal and road building, but it certainly didn't get into T. Roosevelt's government-business "commissions," etc.
I go back to my man Taft. In 1912 he looked about him and saw the currents in a swirl. On the one hand the Progressives wanted Croly's workman's paradise, and they'd get there by bringing business and government together in the interests of the common man (waaaaay too much Hitler in that one for me). They'd also get there by making the Constitution easier to amend and judical rulings subject to a voter approval by majority vote. On the other hand were the Democrats, with Wilson, considered a southern conservative, but with Bryan ever looming above. They would solve the world's problems by eliminating the tariff (Jeffersonian) and have government all but run the trains (socialism). Their view of business was that it was all evil except in the home state, at which point all the powers of the Government ought be submitted on its behalf.
Taft shook his fist at the extreme solutions around him. He explained the futility of the socialist destruction of private property. He pointed to the dangers of unchecked majority rule. He looked about him and saw two fundamental forces at work -- he asked, if "government is framed for the greatest good of the greatest number and also for the greatest good of the individual... [how do both] proceed side by side"? Sounds like a pretty good question for our forum here. Libertarians who reject the "greatest good of the greatest number" only get around it by calculating all national interests on the individual, a land of good neighbors. Ultimately, it's the same thing. And statists who reject the "greatest good of the individual" are simply wrong, philosophically and proven in the disasterous 20th century, as you point out.
Taft freely admitted that the "Jeffersonian idea" that the "least government is best" was incapable to meet present conditions, and he acknowledged a necessity for statutory response to those demands. However, he would accept no solution that did not enforce "as the highest ideal in society... equality of opportunity for every member born into it." Whatever changes were to be made must come "without destroying the present structure of our Government and without affecting the guarantees of life, liberty, and property."
He went on:
"The most abiding compliment that can be paid to the American people is to point to the fact that in the Constitution which they framed and have maintained they have recognized the danger of hasty action by themselves, and have, in its checks and balances, voluntarily maintained a protection against it. The trust is that in this last century we have vindicated popular government in a way that it has never been vindicated before."
Distrust of popular government! The pride that I have that this is a popular Government, and that it has shown itself the strongest in history, is as deeply embed as any feeling that is in me. I would be the last man to exclude from the direction of the ship of state the will of the American people. That is the ultimate source of authority, and it does not in any way minimize my faith and my love of popular government that I insist that the expression of that popular will shall be with the deliberation to make it sound and safe."I think Taft would find Sobran's article silly. Or he might think that Roosevelt wrote it. (Probably both).
'Do the math' - count the bodies. The genocidal track record of many twentieth-century governments with regard to their own citizens suggests that the Jeffersonians were 'on to something'...I think to blame Hitler, Stalin, and Mao on Hamilton is a bit much... The mother of the 20th Century, WWI was an imperial war: Sobran's monarchies caused it, not Hamilton's federalism.
Unfortunately, libertarianism needs to simplify reality in order to accommodate its conclusions.
The Jefferson-Hamilton axis was a political face-off as much as a philosophical confrontation. Both men supported the Constitution, which became the ropes surrounding their differences. Their outlook from there varies tremendously, but on the political structures they agreed. Certainly, things get more complicated down the time line...
Be well, WIJG!
For whatever it's worth, I believe Mr. Taft was wrong – specifically:
"The most abiding compliment that can be paid to the American people is to point to the fact that in the Constitution which they framed and have maintained...
Many would suggest that the Constitution of the Founders was not in fact “maintained."
... they have recognized the danger of hasty action by themselves, and have, in its checks and balances, voluntarily maintained a protection against it.
Mr. Madison wrote at length concerning the folly of trusting the federal government, specifically including the judiciary branch, to ‘check’ and ‘balance’ itself (please refer to his Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800). The real “checks and balances” of Mr. Madison’s ‘compound republic’ (if I remember his term correctly) were completely dependent upon the continued survival of vigorous State governments capable of ‘interposing’ between their citizens and federal tyranny.
The trust is that in this last century we have vindicated popular government in a way that it has never been vindicated before.
The use of the federal military to forcefully retain nearly half of the States and populace within the federal union could be described in many ways, but “popular government” would not be the phrase I would personally select.
Distrust of popular government! The pride that I have that this is a popular Government, and that it has shown itself the strongest in history, is as deeply embed as any feeling that is in me. I would be the last man to exclude from the direction of the ship of state the will of the American people. That is the ultimate source of authority, and it does not in any way minimize my faith and my love of popular government that I insist that the expression of that popular will shall be with the deliberation to make it sound and safe.
Perhaps Mr. Taft should have asked a few of the surviving “states’ rights” advocates whether they ‘distrusted’ the ‘popular government.’
I intend no disrespect to the memory of Mr. Taft. However, the century just ended provided more than sufficient justification for the Jeffersonian distrust of government – the ‘dangerous servant and fearful master’ of Mr. Washington’s observation.
As for Mr. Lind, I believe his book is well worth reading. Interestingly enough, he seems to think that the current Democratic Party has lost whatever attachment it possessed to Hamiltonian ideals (although the party’s Marxist tilt would seem to incline it more towards Mr. Hamilton’s ‘expansive’ government than Mr. Jefferson’s limited government). He also refers to the current Republican Party as “Jeffersonian” in nature, and apparently considers most of its members to be “Jeffersonian yahoos.”
With that in mind, I must ask: do you consider the accomplishments of the Republican Party (increasingly “Jeffersonian” since at least 1980) to be of value? And do you consider yourself (in any way, shape, or form) to be one of the “yahoos” - or do you just enjoy debating us?
;>)
I’m sorry if I gave that impression – it was not my intent. Rather, I was merely suggesting that there are ample grounds for distrusting one’s own government. For example, Hitler ‘seized power’ under the terms of Article 48 of the German Constitution, and I am not at all certain that Mr. Hamilton would have disapproved if a similar article had been incorporated into our own Constitution. Those who trust government, as Mr. Hamilton apparently did, are the last to realize its dangers.
The mother of the 20th Century, WWI was an imperial war: Sobran's monarchies caused it, not Hamilton's federalism.
In either case, the war was most certainly not caused by a “Jeffersonian” republic.
Unfortunately, libertarianism needs to simplify reality in order to accommodate its conclusions.
That sword ‘cuts both ways:’ please refer to my comments regarding Mr. Taft’s remarks above.
The Jefferson-Hamilton axis was a political face-off as much as a philosophical confrontation. Both men supported the Constitution, which became the ropes surrounding their differences.
Given the ‘expansive’ Federalist interpretation of ‘implied’ constitutional powers, which differed markedly from Mr. Jefferson’s strict ‘enumerated powers’ interpretation, I would suggest that there were two sets of “ropes surrounding their differences” – and that Mr. Hamilton’s “rope” might better be described as a nearly-nonexistent rubber band...
Their outlook from there varies tremendously, but on the political structures they agreed. Certainly, things get more complicated down the time line...
Quite true – although history may have shown that the ‘structural’ aspect of the federal government was the least of the Founders’ worries...
Take care!
Taft was beloved by southern Democratic politicians, actually. They opposed him on the tariff and the military (they wanted funding cut), but otherwise supported him and were key to some of his greatest legislative successes. Taft sought to break the "Solid South," and although it didn't come until Nixon's time, it was the winning strategy for the Republicans. A classic story is of the Democrats at a banquet for Taft in Richmond (more or less as related here): "Great man, great man," says one. "Indeed," agrees the other. Then some silence. Finally, one says, "You didn't vote for him, did you?" "Vote for him? Vote for him!" says the other. "I'd rather see him in hell first!"
So the answer to your question: Southerners of 1909 were well into the federal game. Southern States more than any other region benefited from Federal expenditures in harbor and river projects. Serious money.
So it seems I must put Taft's comments into some perspective. He was making sense of a crazed age, a time when the Founders were accused by prohibitionists of being drunks and by progressives of being oppressive capitalists. (See Beard's "Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution," a horrid polemic on the economic motives of the Founders).
I totally disgree with your assessment of Taft's hommage to popular government. You base that completely on States rights: I'm with ya on that, but without condemning the Civil War. Again, let's not go there. Dealing with what he had at the time (and understanding that the language dated back to 1831, not 1861), Taft was affirming popular, representative & constitutional government at a time when Sobran's beloved monarchies still ran the world on the one side and on the other mob rule menaced it on the other. Taft stood up to both. So there is no need to disrespect him; try another look.
Perhaps we ought close this by taking sides on that famous "Jefferson Day" celebration of 1830:
Jackson:"Our federal Union: it must be preserved!"
Calhoun: "The Union: next to our liberty, most dear."
Speaking of which, did you know that South Carolina tried to purchase some tons of powder in 1832 from a Maryland gunpowder factory? Silly me, I thought they were just mouthing off. Guess they got some more nerve up thirty years later.
Finally, I again object to your characterization of the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government -- come on, WIJG! The American people, through their central and State governments, conquered -- not caused -- those evils.
do you consider the accomplishments of the Republican Party (increasingly “Jeffersonian” since at least 1980) to be of value? And do you consider yourself (in any way, shape, or form) to be one of the “yahoos” - or do you just enjoy debating us?Do you really need to ask this? Nuances, gradiations, friend. Even black & white comes in shades of grey...
I think we're getting posts crossed here. My #287 was to your #285. Your #286 next up... Meanwhile, great to see ya here!
Your: "That sword ‘cuts both ways:’ please refer to my comments regarding Mr. Taft’s remarks above."
LOL! See what I mean about the gray-scale?
I do object to this notion to some that the Union died as soon as it was born with the Whiskey Rebellion being the birth of statism (some even call it still-born with Shay) and the Civil War the birth of communism, and both the death of the individual, and so on and on to thick air and high taxes. I just don't see our times as all that different from before. I read the daily news from 100 years ago and I recognize more than I don't. The only thing I find ridiculous are the extreme politics and pet hysterias that every age experiences.
Could a Jeffersonian republic endure? Well, the French sure proved him wrong, at least in a certain interpretation. I don't wish to argue with success: our nation is a tremendous success. I know you believe that, too. I think we simply look at it from opposite sides.
What is the square root of reply #290?
Now for the answer to your question: (Mind you, square root is the opposite of 'flexible root,' hehe..)
Since the square root of any one reply sometimes consists of, but is not limited to: (A-taking things out of context) or (B-twisting of the facts) or (C-injection of occasional venom and anti-venom thereof) or (D-limited or misguided knowledge and/or opinion) in addition to (E-good, ernest debate based on history, truth, and facts), I declare the following:
Ans.=290/((SUM(A:D)-(E+flexible root))) Alrighty then! ;-)
Good thread by the way.
'Do the math' - count the bodies. The genocidal track record of many twentieth-century governments with regard to their own citizens suggests that the Jeffersonians were 'on to something'...
I think Lind's point here was that we had more to fear from a hostile world -- Communists, fascists, terrorists -- than from our own government. Every people may have something to fear from its rulers, but the "math" does suggest that Lind and his Hamiltonians are more correct on this score than the Jeffersonians, at least as far as the US is concerned. The "math" would be different for those in other countries.
Hamilton or Jefferson? To tell the truth, in school I had always prefered Jefferson. If I put in a good word for Hamilton now there are several reasons.
First, defense. A strictly Jeffersonian society would not have been able to defend itself. This was the reason why Washington supported the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. A strict Jeffersonian -- as Jefferson himself admitted -- would not even have been able to purchase Louisiana. We owe one of Jefferson's greatest legacies to his breaking his own rules.
Jeffersonianism was based on the idea that America would be able to remain neutral and secure and aloof from all the world's quarrels. This too was disproven by the events of the early republic. A world torn by war and revolution showed scant respect for American isolation and neutrality, and the same would be true in the 20th and 21st century.
Secondly, a reading of the Constitution does suggest that it was not intended to be a straitjacket. Some things were definitely forbidden, but there was room for government power to grow. Here too, Jeffersonian practice contradicts and disproves Jeffersonian theory. Jefferson and Madison did not hesitate to make use of new powers when they felt it was necessary, though they had denied this to the Federalists when the Jeffersonians were in opposition. And this has been accepted by paleo-libertarians and Rockwellites and anarcho-capitalists, who now turn back to the Articles of Confederation for their models. There isn't much left of the theory that the federal government's powers are limited only to those things specifically spelled out literally in the Constitution, and Jefferson and Madison knew this, when they weren't acting and thinking in a narrowly partisan fashion.
Thirdly, there is that contradiction between high-powered capitalism and its wide markets and Jeffersonian theories of agrarianism and narrow state sovereignty. To tell the truth, I like a lot about those Jeffersonian theories, but they would not have created the kind of capitalist society that Rockwellites prefer. A Jeffersonian society, fragmented into narrow state sovereignties would be more like Europe was before unification than America is now: shallow little ponds with their own traditions, regulations and bureaucracies, rather than a free and open field for development. There are some things I find appealing about that vision, but it's not one that I think the anarcho-capitalists would really prefer.
There is also the unacknowledged contradiction between "state sovereignty" and libertarianism. Rockwellites luxuriate in the fantasy of an alternative line of development, without having to face the hard question of which they would prefer -- sovereign, autonomous states with real powers, or the libertarian vision of less government across the board. Had their path been followed, or were we to follow it now, it would lead to a sharp conflict between the two. It's only that the plan remains a fantasy that keeps two such potentially hostile camps in the same faction.
Are there contradictions in Hamiltonianism? To be sure, but the contradiction you point to is one associated with economic development as such, not with the Hamiltonian program in particular. If one had been able to cultivate a modern corporate economy by Jeffersonian means, one would find the same conflicts developing. Arguably the Hamiltonian policy accelerated the point at which socialist ideas would be put on the agenda. But what those policies accelerated was precisely the success of capitalism at generating great wealth.
If capitalism works, it produces an economic surplus. And it produces classes and parties which want to take it through political means and use it for their own purposes. If you don't develop and create that kind of wealth, you may avoid this development for a time -- and the may should be stressed, since once they become fully settled poor, agrarian societies are equally suceptible to class-based agitation -- but you don't create the kind of wide-open capitalist society that so many latter-day Jeffersonians would prefer, either.
If you want to attribute the Roosevelts to Hamilton and Lincoln, you have to look at the kind of agitation that a Jeffersonian society would produce. You can see this in the populists and agrarian socialists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. You would also have to ascribe a lot of demagogues -- Pitchfork Ben Tillman and Tom Watson, etc. -- to the Jeffersonian camp.
The Jeffersonian South produced its own forms of demagogery and radicalism that can be laid at Jefferson's door just as deftly as you or Lind attribute FDR to Hamilton*. If one's quick to attribute LBJ to Alexander Hamilton -- two figures with nothing in common beyond the fact that they were both politicians who wanted government to do things -- one shouldn't gag at the association of Debs or Wilson with Jefferson. An agrarian, decentralized society would not be less quick to produce egalitarian radicals or statists than a highly developed capitalist one.
Another example of latter-day Jeffersonians wanting to have it both ways is that they ignore that Jefferson had both a theory of government and a theory of development. The ascribe so much of contemporary political developments to the success of Hamilton's path, but ignore that Jefferson also had a path of development, which would have had other consequences had it been followed. By the same logic which they apply to Hamilton, one must make Jefferson responsible for the political consequences that might have ensued had society followed his path of development, though these consequences would be as far from his political philosophy as Clinton or LBJ was from Hamilton's vision. Blame Hamilton for both 18th century elitism and 20th century liberalism, and you must blame Jefferson for the consequences of extreme libertarianism and state sovereignty and for all the consequences that his policies would have entailed had they been followed. I don't think it fair to blame Hamilton for totalitarianism, but the counterpart would be to blame Jefferson for all those who were too weak or irresolute to stand it its way.
_______________
*Bear in mind that Lind has an agenda of his own. He wants to defend the FDR, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey vision of government that he sees opposed by neo-Jeffersonian Republicans. It's for this reason that he's latched onto Hamilton. Your typical Republican of 1930, heir to Hamilton and Lincoln, would dispute Lind's genealogy.
Silly me, I thought they were just mouthing off. Guess they got some more nerve up thirty years later.
Perhaps it was the folks in Congress who “got some more nerve up thirty years later,” and refused to compromise. Who can say? But even Mr. Lincoln’s secretary/biographer acknowledged that the roots of the conflict went back atleast to the 1830s.
Finally, I again object to your characterization of the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government -- come on, WIJG! The American people, through their central and State governments, conquered -- not caused -- those evils.
I have never characterized “the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government,” and previously apologized if that was the impression you gathered from my post. Rather, it is quite clear (to paraphrase your statement) that ‘the 20th century's insanities are a product of government.’ Those who suggest (more often than not) that the solutions to life’s problems lie in granting governments additional powers, rather than fewer powers, should acknowledge the 20th century track record.
I just don't see our times as all that different from before. I read the daily news from 100 years ago and I recognize more than I don't. The only thing I find ridiculous are the extreme politics and pet hysterias that every age experiences.
I disagree, in that I believe the context has changed. It is quite interesting to read the comments of early 19th century presidents like Mr. Jefferson, or even Mr. J.Q. Adams, and see these gentlemen advising Congress that certain legislative proposals are most likely unconstitutional, because the proposed actions fall outside the powers enumerated within the Constitution. I recently read some of Daniel Webster’s comments from the military conscription debates during the War of 1812: it was suggested that the draft would be unconstitutional, because it would sidestep the restrictions the Constitution placed on Congress with regard to the ‘citizen soldiers’ of the State militia. Since that time, the enumerated powers of Congress have not changed, nor have the restrictions on federal power over the militia; but the actions of our government most certainly have changed. The high court has ruled that nearly any federal action may be justified by the “common defense” and “general welfare” clauses – a concept that Mr. Madison found repugnant, even in 1800. In essence, it seems that we have progressed from a government limited to those functions specifically enumerated, to a government allowed any action but those specifically prohibited (and sometimes not even that restriction holds up – witness recent federal ‘gun control’ legislation).
As you have so astutely observed, we seem to view certain subjects in somewhat different ways. It may be that Mr. Lind was right, when he noted the following (quoted previously):
“The disagreement between the two great American traditions can be summed up thus: Hamiltonians are more afraid of the world than of their own government, while Jeffersonians are more afraid of their own government than the world.”
May I characterize our take as the difference, to borrow from Twain, between lightning and the lightning bug?
That is, the centralization of American government ain't Moscow or Peking (without apologies). As you say,
"Those who suggest (more often than not) that the solutions to life’s problems lie in granting governments additional powers, rather than fewer powers, should acknowledge the 20th century track record.I insist on some distinction here in terms of those powers granted government. As x tells us, the powers of defense extended to the central government have served and preserved the American people. I have attempted over and over here to find a way through this grey area where philosophy dares not tread.
There is a difference, for example, between the exercise of eminent domain in the building of post roads and saving desert rats (especially when 5th amendment protections are not recognized). Is acknowledgement of this distinction naive or naively sophisticated? Help me, cuz otherwise I'm pedaling air.
Yeah, what Chong said. Yeah, that's it.
Marvelous. :)
Is "saving desert rats" a federal power 'necessarily implied' by the Constitution? If not, your distinction would appear to be valid!
Thanks for your thoughts! (And my apologies to 'x' for not replying to his post - we are experiencing phone problems, so I have to keep things short!)
;>)
You responded: Nonsense. You don't pay any taxes at all. The gov't plays a shell game wherein it gives you money and then takes some back. It still remains true that that all of this money was originally stolen from people in the productive economy.
Who the hell are you to tell me I don't pay taxes. My salary is already lower compared to similar occupations outside the government, and then the gov't takes out the exact same portion it does from your pay check. Add in state tax, Social Security (which I'll never see since I don't get SS based on federal service), and FICA, and there you have it: I pay probably more in tax than you. And, from the stupidity of your post, its a big assumption on my part to consider you to even be intelligent enough to be employable.
You then went on with this tripe: I don't allow my servants to decide how to run my house - for obvious reasons. If you want to decide what happens, get yourself a real job instead of pretending that that you "serve" the public you extort a salary from.
Considering that you don't know what I do for a living, aside from working from the federal government, that is an asinine statement. There are many thousands of feds that work in demanding, ultra-sensitive fields that you will never comprehend. Who won the Cold War? The feds that you bash, designing superior technology, doing field work in anonymity around the world knowing that cretins like you are bashing them out of ignorance, manning field offices around the world doing jobs you don't have the intelligence to even comprehend.
Libertarians think that government is bad. The contrary assumption is that the individual is good.
Lol!
(or, is it, could it be -- the world isn't just black and white...?}
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.