“But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary… The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 51
Occupy Wall Street and its spinoffs are 99 percent hipster dufus; naive, economically illiterate babies who believe that storks bring them their iPhones, clothing, transportation and coffee beans.
I continue to puzzle over the notion that people turn into angels when they’re elected to public office or become part of the machinery of government. It’s not my notion, but it seems to be a dearly held belief by those who are politically left of center. Why else would one vote for a Democrat, particularly now?
There are those on the left who claim to be skeptical of government. They’ll say things like, “Well, they’re all corrupt,” or, “We should throw them all out of office,” and so forth. But then they’ll turn around and vote Democrat, the party dedicated to making government larger and more intrusive.
I sometimes agree with the sentiment that it would be nice to throw all the bums out of office, but barring that I vote Republican simply because a Republican will at least grow government more slowly. Even Republicans, supposedly dedicated to limiting government, can’t help themselves and the relentless march away from limited government and toward limitless government continues.
I suppose a limitless government would be fine, “if men were angels,” but they’re not, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector. Again, “if men were angels,” there would be no need for government in the first place.
Every human being has a self-centered profit motive. There are exceptions to this rule, but those exceptions do not reside in Washington, D.C., Madison, Sacramento, Denver, Austin, or any other seat of power. Self interest is a powerful motivating factor and the consistently aberrant behavior of our representatives is a constant reminder of this fact.
Duke Cunningham, the former Republican California congressman, used his office to enrich himself as much as possible. He resigned after pleading guilty to accepting bribes in the neighborhood of $2 million. Cunningham was also the Navy’s only flying ace in the Vietnam War. He served his country well and honorably, but once given the power that comes with public office he succumbed to the temptations.
I use Cunningham as an example because there’s no need to get into a tug-of-war debate about which party is more corrupt. Corruption crosses party lines and can grasp those who were once honorable and ethical. That’s because the seed of corruption is in each of us.
Therefore, it seems quite logical to me that, as Madison warned, government is under an obligation to control itself. Government is not controlling itself when it spends a gazillion dollars on “jobs” bills and whatnot. Who in their right mind believes that money is being well spent? These bills are thinly disguised as legislation, but are designed to launder tax dollars through connected political interests in order to find their way back into campaign coffers.
Meanwhile, economically illiterate hipster dufuses protest because corporations have a profit motive. People who run corporations and those who work for them have the same propensity toward corruption as anyone in government. The difference is that I’m not forced to buy a corporation’s product. I am forced to buy the government’s product, whatever it may be and however much it may inconvenience me.
I’ll admit it. I’m in the tank for corporations because they serve my interests. The irony of free market capitalism is that in serving its own interests, a corporation must serve mine. Just a quick glance around the room tells me they’re doing a damn fine job of it, too.
Let’s see, computer equipment from Dell, HP and Cisco, landline courtesy of AT&T, cell phone courtesy of Verizon, semi-electric guitar and amplifier by Fender (thanks Henshaw!), re-writable DVDs from Memorex, stapler from Swingline, furniture by some corporation somewhere, camera from Canon, and on and on and on it goes.
You can’t get away from the evil corporations! That’s how evil they are! They made me buy all this stuff to make my life more convenient! Wait a minute… I chose to buy that stuff, and I hope each and every corporation I mentioned is making a huge profit.
Where do these hipster dufus protesters think all of their modern conveniences come from? Do they think that if government planned and ran our economy that products would be self innovating and appear magically at our doorsteps? It’s religious to believe all will be well when government takes over and the evil corporations are punished for making things easy for us. Big government is suddenly Jesus feeding the multitudes from five loaves and two fishes.
Let’s say one of the corporations from which I buy products makes a really bad investment in a solar energy company. In order to recoup the half billion they wasted they then raise the prices of their products. Chances are I’ll find a competitive corporation from which to buy those products. I love what they make, but I don’t love it that much.
Then let’s say the federal government makes a really bad investment in the same solar energy company. They raise my taxes, so I move to Honduras? That’s my only choice, because government makes me pay dearly for its mistakes and throws me in jail if I don’t pay for its mistakes.
Let’s further postulate that the product I love is actually manufactured in China. I think it’s supposed to bother me that it’s made elsewhere, but I get a great price and have more disposable income. Our government’s product, which I suppose is the growing number of overpaid bureaucrats, are made and paid in the USA. Yeah! Only… they’re overpaid because their union negotiated with the government to ensure not only a fantastic paycheck, but one helluva benefits and pension package.
The same people who negotiated with the union and come up with new bureaucracies to employ even more public employees get kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions to help ensure the cycle continues. Oh well, at least my money stays in the USA, except for the foreign aid that’s likely remodeling some penny ante dictator’s personal castle.
I leave you with Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue discussing greed and capitalism back in the day, a day that was apparently more civil than ours…
httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
We begin this Bill of Rights Countdown with what is likely the most misunderstood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, or Article I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty clear, huh? However, progressives often reinterpret the First Amendment to say:
Congress shall not allow any reference to or discussion of religion in the public square, and shall prohibit the free exercise thereof if the religion teaches something we disagree with; and abridge freedom of speech, and of the press, if we disagree with the speech and deem it to be “hate” speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless we agree with the petitioners.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His argument was that enumerating such rights would allow the government to abridge rights it was never given the power to address in the first place:
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power…
Federalist No. 84, from which I drew that excerpt, deserves to be quoted in full because it is a compelling argument against a Bill of Rights. It was also predictive of the convoluted ways and means by which future totalitarians would seek to abridge those rights and find powers and rights in favor of a centralized government over the people that were never intended to be granted.
Though compelling, I disagree with Hamilton. Totalitarians will always find ways to expand the scope of government interference in the lives of individuals. They don’t need a Bill of Rights to do so. A Bill of Rights gives us something specific to use in our fight against the totalitarian leanings of those who, in the name of “social justice” or some other concept of fairness, will abridge our freedoms in order to enforce an unattainable Utopian brotherhood of man.
Before becoming President, Barack Obama was a "community organizer" who taught groups like ACORN a special type of math that would ensure their "fair share".
Like Henshaw, your venerable Daily Plunge host, Club Soda received a notice from the Census Bureau stating that the Bureau would soon invade my home with a form to fill out with such pertinent information as my race, gender and so on and so forth. As noted in Henshaw’s earlier post about the Census Bureau notification, it reads in part:
Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.
As with the Henshaw notice, the words “fair share” made an appearance on my notification form. I immediately picked up my copy of The Federalist Papers, which also includes The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation and The Constitution, to see what the founders had to say about getting my “fair share”.
Shockingly, the phrase “fair share” does not make an appearance in either The Constitution or in any of the letters that constitute the founders’ defense of the new Constitution, The Federalist Papers. However, I did find some interesting notes about the census, its purpose and why the founders believed a census was a crucial element of the republic.
“As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree, on the disposition, if not on the cooperation of the States,” wrote James Madison in Federalist No. 54, “it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the State will have opposite interests which will control and balance each other and produce the requisite impartiality.”
With the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which established the personal income tax, these “opposite interests” – taxation versus representation – no longer applied. Now, the temptation to exaggerate essentially doubles with the added incentive for everyone to grab their “fair share” when it comes time for the Feds to dole out cash.
As Madison implied, without some type of counterbalance to ensure an accurate and unbiased census, corruption would taint the entire process as the states and various special-interest groups within those states would look for ways to make the numbers come out in their favor. This is fertile ground for ACORN-like groups that are not above filling out forms on behalf of dead people, movie stars and professional athletes in order to get their “fair share”.
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Constitution was “merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,” not, as Hamilton put it, “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.”
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was a smart guy, but he should have avoided Aaron Burr.
Contrast this philosophy, which guides the spirit of the American people’s compact with the federal government (the Constitution), with this gem from the good people at Smart Balance (they make some kind of delicious buttery spread): “Denmark is the first country to legally ban artificial trans fats. The Danish people seem to be doing just fine without it… Sounds like a pretty good law.”
You know what, Smart Balance people, whoever you are? You can have my trans fats when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands. Apparently, if the Smart Balance people had their way, the feds would be regulating how much fat, or what kind of fat, I decide to eat each day, a.k.a., regulating “every species of personal and private concerns.” Even Doctor McCoy is saying, “Good God, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Constitutional lawyer!”
You don’t have to be a Constitutional lawyer to see plainly that the Smart Balance people (whoever they are) are perfectly fine with violating the rights of every American in order to benefit their business. The term “fascism” is typically associated with murdering tyrants, but in the early 1900s it simply described the state’s relationship to the individual. It did not have the connotation it does today until the very nature of the system made it easy for tyrants to be tyrants and start murdering their people en masse.
And, in such a system, the government has a very cozy relationship with corporations, favoring certain ones over others, as well as certain industries over others. So, at one time it was called “fascism”, but in today’s topsy-turvy, girls will be boys and boys will be girls, mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world they call it “progressive”.
Recent Comments