"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -- Johann Goethe
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -- Johann Goethe
"No one shall vote in an election who has not paid income tax or property tax within the four preceding years"
I'm not worried about myself - I'm worried about my children and grandchildren. That's why I support candidates (mostly liberatarian, but some Republicans) that call for radical change. If they're not talking about cutting the size of government by a third or a half at least, removing whole classes of taxes, and eliminating huge swaths of bureaucracy, they their election will be pointless.
I had hope for the "Contract with America". That was apparently the last gasp of true limited government fervor among mainstream Republicans, and what did it do? Nothing of consequence. Now we have Bush, who has performed admirably in foreign policy, but is "same old, same old" on the domestic front.
Let's put things in proportion. The attacks of Sept 11 killed around 4000. That is pretty horrific. But Stalin killed over 10,000,000 and Mao killed more than that. That's the power of a totalitarian society. No matter how well we do against foreign enemies, if we get effectively enslaved by our own government, it will most likely last for many generations, and result in far more deaths than any terrorist actions every could.
Not all of us. Some Americans still believe that the powers of the federal monolith are limited, it's convincing the sheeple that's holding us up. Divest the federal government of all it's unconstitutional entitlement programs, and remove the federal chokehold from our state institutions and things would be as the founders intended - state sovereignity with national protections.
Whenever a copy of the federal budget gets printed up, the thing takes several volumes (is my understanding). How many people are employed by the federal government? How many people would be thrown out of "work" if any serious attempt was made to cut the size of the government? How many people are there who have a financial interest in constantly expanding the size of government?
A national discussion needs to take place wherein we come to agreement as to just what it is that the federal government should do and what it should not do, but I can't see it ever happening. A theoretical discussion about the proper function of government can take place before it's established, but once you get to a point where the money clouds everbody's judgment, it's all over. Personally, I can't imagine anyone deciding to go into politics in the hopes of turning things around, because the government is so big that the ability of one person to make any kind of meaningful change is practically nil. The only reason I can see for anyone to go into politics these days is to feed at the trough and to take advantage of the "bennies".
I just don't see much hope for ever being able to seriously redefine the proper bounds of government until economic factors (or whatever) cause it all to fall apart. I guess you can just put me down as a pessimist in this thing.
Fredrick Bostiat in "The Law" talked about 'A' and 'B' ganging up on 'C' and called it "legal plunder".
What scares me is this may be the last generation to read an article like this and understand the ramifications to the health and well being of civilization. The next generation is only looking for a good time and to be entertained in the next 30 minutes.
...wish I could bookmark... damn new format...
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.Wow. That's what he wrote. I guess we've all just been dragged into Sobran's abyss of historical regret and self-loathing.
It's stupid. Just plain stupid.
It also ignores a crucial element to the American experience which is untouched in these anti-statist threads: the meaning of equality. There will be now and then an admission here that one of the core American principles is that "all men are created equal." And this will be occasionally juxtaposed against outcome-based politics, but truly, is that the only context for this most stunning, unique, and historically distinct proposition that all men are created equal?
It is true that a well-written constitution can slow down the growth of government and decay of freedom, but it can't stop it let alone reverse it. As long as a society has elected leaders, they -- each single one of them -- have an organic interest in selling government power to the constituents. Thus, they have an organic interest in seeing to it that the total amount of power that the government possesses grow.
In contrast to that, an unelected leader is ensured of his position as long as he makes a passably good job of it. Moreover, if overall power increases, the unelected official's share of power will usually decrease. For example, kings who created too much of a government apparatus in the past were forced to appoint ministers who diluted their power.
One can hope that, armed with the lessons from monarchies of the past, the failures of democracy, and the failed attempts to build a stable constitutional republic, the Western Civilization will return to the Medieval ideals of small principalities with hereditary rule. May be not in the 21st century, but very likely in the 22nd.