.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Are You Pro Government, Anti-Government, or for Small Government?

This post rolled up.

I don't think any sane person can argue the fact that government, by definition, exists for one primary purpose and that purpose is to control the individual. Let's look at the definition of government.

Gov·ern·ment, noun:
1.) The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2.) The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3.) Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4.) The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.

The purpose of government is to govern. Govern is defined as to bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage, to impose regulations, to direct or strongly influence the behavior, or to exercise authority over.

With definition in mind, if you support liberty and freedom, then government, in the mind of any right thinking person, is evil, since government by definiton restricts these liberties by exercising authority through regulation and governance. Now realistically, it is in some cases a necessary evil, but it is still an evil concept. Is it not?

H. L Mencken, was a twentieth century journalist, satirist and social critic, a cynic and a freethinker, and he once said: "I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."

When illegal immigrants ( no, not "border crossers", "undocumented workers", or whatever the popular, politically correct euphemism of the day happens to be) break our laws and enter into the United States illegally, probably the foremost excuse/reason given is that they are willing to risk their lives and break our laws is because they are seeking freedom, both economic and civil liberty freedom. In other words, they are seeking freedom from government which limits both. Or to be more realistic and accurate, they are seeking a government that is less restrictive and less authortitarian than the government they are leaving.

As an individual, what rights and freedoms do we want and look for? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Right to privacy? Freedom of thought? Freedom to express yourself in writing? We have all these things unless unless government limits them.

The Constitution of the United States was written for one reason. And that reason was to recognize government for what it is, and worse yet, what it can become; and thereby limit it’s evil-doing. (I'm starting to sound like President G.W. Bush here with the evil-doing thing.) Nonetheless, in a way, one can say our Constitution is anti-government.

If our rights were to come from man (government), then government can take them away. If our rights are inalienable, then our human rights are absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. (Wikipedia). That's why this idea was included in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, and states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

Quoting H. L Mencken again, “The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone - one which barely escapes being no government at all.”

Now so as not being at risk of sounding too much of a "Euphorian", I must say that people have warts, and are not perfect, and if left to their own inclinations, will inescapably seek power over others. Therefore, we need some form of governance to protect us from ourselves, so to speak. Obviously government is made up of people, those same people with warts and other imperfections as aforementioned. Which is perhaps why H.L. Mencken also said, "every decent man is ahamed of the government he lives under.

And that's the conundrum. Is there anything worse that a conniving, self-serving, power seeking individual. Yes. It is a conniving, self-serving, power seeking bunch of individuals that band together to form a government.

Yet they have no particular talent to govern. No more than you and me. They are nothing more than a bunch of people, not any more capable than the rest of us. But they stick together and think as as a group, mostly unattached to the rest of us. Being unattached to the majority of us, banding together, and thinking like a like-minded think tank or collective -- are they then not in opposition to the individual? Their real aim is to "stick together" and remain a permanent member of the collective. Thus, their goal becomes to stay in office.

And in a way, they become professional hustlers. Do they not? They will do anything, to stay in office. Power corrupts. When a person gains power over other persons it seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. The culture of corruption that you hear so much about today is the end result. It does not follow any one political party. It becomes an inherent part of the process, that only term limits, I submit, can ultimately solve.

These persons who are corrupted by the process of ruling over their fellow men are not innately evil. They may begin as honest men. Or not. Their motives for wanting to direct the actions of others may be purely patriotic, selfless, and noble. Or not. They may wish only to do good for the people. But, apparently, the only way they can think of to do this "good" is to impose more restrictive laws.

" Now, obviously, there is no point in passing a law which requires people to do something they would do anyhow; or which prevents them from doing what they are not going to do anyhow. Therefore, the possessor of the political power could very well decide to leave every person free to do as he pleases so long as he does not infringe upon the same right of every other person to do as he pleases. However, that concept appears to be utterly without reason to a person who wants to exercise political power over his fellow man, for he asks himself: "How can I 'do good' for the people if I just leave them alone?" Besides, he does not want to pass into history as a "do nothing" leader who ends up as a footnote somewhere. So he begins to pass laws that will force all other persons to conform to his ideas of what is good for them."

They can try reform, to correct their corruption, but whether it be campaign finance reform, or lobbying reform, by enacting new legislation; it will not work. Again, I suggest term limits. An obvious downfall to this is you may have a handful of hardworking, honest legislators who will have their fruitful careers cut short; but the upside is getting rid of the majority who are not. This would keep the government from growing progressively more collective.

Government ends up being an “us against them” cooperative and exists not for the individual but despite the individual. And as if by necessity, it grows worse, existing solely for its own satisfaction, opposing the ambitions of those (the taxpayer) who fund it.

Patriotism is believing in his country and what it stands for. Our founding fathers were patriots and stood for individual freedom and small government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is proof of this. And this is what I believe in. I hope this makes me a patriot. I think am.


  • Excellent post H-H! Quoting what others have said in other venues is all well and good but the real power of the blogshere is for ‘we the people’ to express and exchange our individual views and thoughts. Despite how complex and nuanced elitist like Senator Specter think our Constitution is, we mortals can understand it and the concepts on which it is based.

    You don’t sound like George W. so much as you sound like our Founding Fathers. Their goal was precisely to maintain liberty and freedom in the face of necessary but minimal government. That is not the goal of the Left. The goal of the Left is equality, and not equality of opportunity, which is inherent in liberty, but equality of outcome. Since individuals free to pursue their own lives as they see fit produce decidedly different results, liberty is the antithesis of the Lefts goal. Revolutions occur to overthrow oppressive governments. Their battle cry is ‘LIBERTY!!!, not ‘EQUAL, even if less than optimal OUTCOME!!!. (Try to picture Mel Gibson’s ‘William Wallace’, face contorted and painted blue rallying his forces by screaming the latter.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home