“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
The Obama administration has made it abundantly clear that some people are more equal than others. What began as “hope” and “change” has turned into despair and stagnation as average citizens like Yours Truly watch our tax money fall into the hands of preferred political interests.
Where are you in the federal government's pyramid? And, where are our children and grandchildren? Perhaps in the impossibly unsustainable level? Awesome!
What sent Ken Lay and his Enron minions to prison pales in comparison to the fraud regularly being perpetrated on the American people by our public servants. Yet instead of languishing in prison, the politicians and the preferred political interests who defraud the taxpayer in the name of “green jobs,” “affordable housing,” “social justice” and whatnot are handsomely rewarded.
President Obama likes to talk about crumbling bridges and a deteriorating infrastructure to justify more drunken, crack-smoking sailor spending. These days, the problem is that when the federal government gets involved with building bridges and other infrastructure, every project is forced through the intestines of a vast regulatory, money-skimming bureaucracy that puts the completion date somewhere in the far-distant future at a price tag umpteen times higher than if the locals got together and made it themselves.
Never mind Social Security, big government as a whole has become a vast Ponzi scheme. It has been set up to reward itself on the backs of the average citizen. It is sold to us as an “investment in the future,” but whose future, exactly? Certainly not mine nor my kids’ future, nor any future generations that will follow me. As Mark Steyn puts it, we’re looting the future to bribe the present.
And that’s essentially what these various so-called jobs, stimulus, health care, financial reform and other bills are all about: bribing specific constituencies to build political power. These constituencies are given preference over others, violating one of the bedrock ideas of America’s founding philosophy, equality before the law. Those who are being treated unequally – the average hard-working American who wants nor expects anything from the federal government – sees much of what they pay in taxes go into the black hole of political favoritism.
Black holes are formed from stars that collapse from their own weight, and that is the future of America as so vividly illustrated by solar-collapsing Solyandra. We said goodbye to half a billion of our taxpayer dollars and yet in today’s surreal, hyper-inflated atmosphere it seems a mere drop in the bucket when your average “stimulus” bill is reckoned in the trillions.
Just as we’ve become used to buying gas for more than $3 a gallon, the political class has desensitized us to the concept of trillions of dollars as a reasonable amount for the government to regularly outlay to those whom it favors. And you better believe that politicians and bureaucrats tend to favor themselves over any others, followed closely by those who help them ensure they stay in office so they can continue to favor themselves.
James Madison wrote that “power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Unfortunately, we have strayed quite far from that philosophy, and have allowed a remote central government to operate almost completely unrestrained. One need only read the Constitution to see how far astray we’ve really gone.
What do Americans really want? Is it a nation of do-nothing slackers who expect that all of their problems will be solved by Sugar Daddy Uncle Sam? Or, is it a nation of independent innovators who welcome risk and the consequences of failure?
I’m afraid the answer is increasingly the former, and as Americans purposely shackle themselves to this dependent model they will find they have fewer real liberties as their political betters grow in wealth and power. The pyramid in the world’s largest pyramid scheme ever is being assembled as we speak, write and read. Where are you in the pyramid?
In some parts of America, such as this scene from a favorite spot of Club Soda’s in south Texas, keeping and bearing arms is a practical necessity. This illustrates one of the problems with a centralized federal government restricting and regulating firearms. The Federal government is not and should not be in the business of forcing people in the sticks or in a particularly crappy urban area to give up their arms because someone in Berkeley feels icky about guns.
In the last installment of The Bill or Rights Countdown I quoted Alexander Hamilton (he’s the guy on the $10 bill) from his argument against a Bill or Rights in Federalist No. 84. His argument basically boiled down to this: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
In the Constitution, there is no power given to the Federal government to either ban or regulate firearms. Because there is a Second Amendment, however, it opens up the subject for national debate, providing a means to restrict something which there is no power to restrict in the first place. Perhaps, as Hamilton wrote, “…it is evident that it [a Bill of Rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
Those in favor of restricting or banning firearms usually point to the wording of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Of course they tend to disregard the second part of the amendment, choosing instead to hone in on the first part about a “well regulated Militia.” It’s old fashioned, they say, and not pertinent to a modern society, and they have a point, to a point.
I read the amendment a bit differently. Admittedly, that may be due to a certain bias I have toward the right of a free people to freely bear arms, and arm bears, if they so choose. I read the amendment as saying that, first, each state has the right to maintain a militia (well regulated, I might add). Second, that the people, that is each individual American, has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Not only do they have that right, but it “shall not be infringed.” I don’t believe it could be any more clear than that.
In Federalist No. 46, James Madison wrote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
There’s that pesky militia again, but once again a sign of their times. Even so, Madison claims that there is an advantage to an armed citizenry. You might think it foolish in a nuclear age where a modern military can run roughshod over its citizens, but it will be a sign of our times if the government takes away the right to bear arms. It will signal a citizenship stripped of its independence and freedom.
These days, the right to keep and bear arms may be only a symbol, but it’s a powerful symbol. Being an arms keeper and bearer myself, it gives me a certain confidence that, if worse comes to worse, I can defend hearth and home.
I’m not talking about holing up and reliving Ruby Ridge because Obama’s a Cinderellaian, or any other such nonsense. I’m talking about being secure and independent. Again, it may only be an illusion, but I’m ultimately more confident in my liberty than Joe Bloke in Europe who’s been effectively neutered into a quiet acquiescence to dependence and state control.
Once more, I hail liberty and freedom, and all the risks that come with it, over the boring and padded world progressives would have us live in to save us from ourselves. I will eat, smoke, drink, drive and shoot whatever the hell I want, thank you very much. And, if some psycho decides he’s going to go on a killing spree, maybe he’d think twice if most people were armed to the teeth.
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.
What's more likely? This makeshift truck boat is headed from Cuba to the U.S. to escape an oppressive regime, or it's headed from the U.S. to Cuba with refugees clamoring for universal health care?
What motivates someone to build a boat out of a Cadillac and brave 90 miles of open ocean to leave Cuba for America’s shores? What motivates someone to risk life and limb and trek across vast desert wastes to leave Mexico and other Central American countries for America?
On the other hand, what motivates America’s citizens to stay put, excepting crazies like Lee Harvey Oswald, and spend all their time on Facebook? Could it have something to do with American exceptionalism, driven by its foundations in liberty and freedom?
The simple fact that people the world over are willing to die to get to America tells me all I need to know about which system is best. America, in short, is fantastic. But it’s not fantastic because our government has forced some utopian notion of equality on its citizens or provided “rights” like health care, housing and a comfortable standard of living. Our comfortable standard of living exists because government never provided it in the first place.
America was founded on the notion that governments are instituted to protect our rights to pursue such things with very little or no government intervention. In fact, government intervention was seen as a threat to liberty and freedom. This philosophy is the only sane and logical approach to good government in an imperfect world. The evidence that this is true is overwhelming.
The evidence that a giant centralized government that meddles in and plans every aspect of a citizen’s life is destructive is also overwhelming. While the likes of Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn and Danny Glover return from worker paradises like Cuba and Venezuela with glowing reports of utopian equality, the citizens of those nations languish in widespread poverty and oppression.
No one who believes in American exceptionalism believes America is perfect, but America is the closest model to perfection we have and are likely to have. Again, this is not because our government has made everything perfectly safe and wonderful for each and every citizen; it’s because a person free to pursue happiness is more likely to find it on their own than through someone a thousand miles away who thinks they know what’s best for them.
The left in America, meanwhile, is constantly advocating for “social justice,” and other euphemisms to control the individual. In practice, this supposed social justice leads to a concentration of wealth and power in the ruling class. Those of us who believe the world is imperfect and that there’s no such thing as Utopia, other than the small town in Texas of that name, understand how dangerous it is to cede our responsibilities, and ultimately our liberties, to a powerful minority.
Just ask any Cuban who’s not with one of their Party handlers if they’ve found Utopia. Sure, they have “free” health care and I’m sure gun violence is practically non-existent, but at what price? I don’t know about you, but I’m much more willing to take my chances in a free society and all the risks that come with it than to be controlled within an inch of my life by the state.
I have a feeling that most people agree with me since I don’t see a lot of people in Miami building makeshift boats to escape America and take advantage of Cuba’s health care system and high “literacy” rates. What I see instead are Canadians coming to America for health care because they have to wait months, if not years, for treatment.
Nor do America’s progressives head for the supposedly greener pastures in more “progressive” nations. Maybe that’s because deep down they understand that America is not the racist, imperialistic devil they’ve been taught it is, but actually is the land of opportunity. I suppose progressives don’t understand that our opportunity is, as the founders put it, derived from our Creator and not a central planning authority, a.k.a., the Federal government. They must think it appeared out of thin air.
When a society’s philosophy shifts from “endowed by the Creator” to “endowed by a centralized bureaucracy,” you can kiss freedom goodbye. Even atheists who understand human nature and have an inkling of history know that it’s far better to be endowed by what they consider to be a mere sociological illusion than it is by their fellow man, who has a long and storied history of doing everything he can to oppress and control others to benefit himself.
Why else do they riot in Greece when their benefits are going to be cut so that the government remains at least nominally solvent? Why else do America’s senior citizens, supported by the AARP, fight tooth and claw for the unsustainable entitlements that will bathe their descendents in debt and, ultimately, economic calamity?
Do they really care about their fellow citizens, particularly those who will follow them? They can cry and whine about the “children” all day long, but until they make actual sacrifices for said “children” you can bet that the “children” are being used as human shields to ensure they get all the goodies the taxpayer can provide them.
America’s unfunded liabilities – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – currently stand at more than $110 trillion. That’s a “t” followed by “rillion,” and it’s not a typo. That works out to about $350,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Who’s going to pay for that? Will it be the senior citizens currently receiving benefits, or will it be Yours Truly and my children and grandchildren?
Tell a senior citizen that their benefits will need to be cut to ease the burden on future generations and observe the wrath that follows. So, if you hear a senior citizen say something weepy about the “children” and how we have to secure health care or whatnot for them, know that they’re really looking out for themselves. You can safely substitute “me” for “children” whenever you hear a Democrat defend the latest unsustainable program, as in, “We’re doing this for [me].”
Something tells me that future generations will be building rafts out of used compact fluorescent light bulbs and heading for China. If we continue on this “progressive” path, America will no longer be that “city upon a hill” that brought the oppressed to its shores.
Imagine if America’s founding had been based on “social justice” and providing creature comforts (health care, unemployment insurance, etc., etc.), rather than the individual’s freedom to pursue those things through their own ingenuity and industry. If based on the former, would we have the same standard of living we do now? What would the world look like now if America had been founded as a nanny state? I’m not sure, but there’s a good chance we’d all be speaking German.
Recent Comments