Jay wrote:
Power should reside with the people, the individuals who make up the fabric of society. Our government is supposed to be there to mediate laws between individuals, not act as tyrant passing down laws from above on a whim. Ultimate power is supposed to reside with the individual to make decisions for him or herself. Yes, there are limits on that power, insofar that you may not abridge another's life, liberty or personal property. These are the ideas upon which our nation was founded. It was founded in response to Imperial tyranny which did not listen to, nor recognize, the rights of the colonists who ultimately rebelled. We're in a similar situation today, where our Federal government is no longer beholden to the public, but instead has ultimate power vested within itself to dispense favors on the various modern courtiers who flock to it. For the first hundred years of our nations history, the seat of power in Washington was a dank, sleepy city that emptied out for months at a time during the summer. Today, since the expansion of Federal power under the Progressives, Washington D.C. and it's surrounding suburbs are the fastest growing municipality in the country with a cost of living now exceeding that of trade cities such as New York and Los Angeles. Why is that? Because as the government has expanded, so to have the jobs associated with lobbying, and running the various departments. They are all living off the taxpayers without producing anything except the laws and regulations they push through in order to justify their paychecks.
That the current system of government is corrupt and dysfunctional is not an argument for all government being evil. Representative government works perfectly in other countries. You haven't given an example of less or no government working better.
I am no anarchist. I do not believe that we should live in a society without laws. I just believe that the laws we do live under must make sense. Do I need the mayor of my city telling me that I can only purchase soda sized 16 oz or under? No. But here's my point: on any given timeline, a government will expand its role until a revolution occurs and it is forced to start again from scratch. It will continue to pass laws regulating the lives of individuals until they become automatons guided by the inputs in a bureaucrats spreadsheet so that the people become more manageable. Messy, chaotic, individualized lives are not easy to control, and so under the guise of benevolent aid, they must be abolished. Using the recent hurricane as an example, would it not be easier to render aid if everyone had the same size home, ate the same amount of food, had the same amount of clothes to replace etc.? It is this scientific codification of humanity which I rebel against. I do not wish to be a number on a spreadsheet. I do not wish to have my calories counted for me, or my clothes to be proscribed for me, or my wants, needs and desires codified. Alas, I am fighting nothing more than a rearguard action, delaying the inevitable. I do not crave order the same way you do, I revel the in the chaotic bits of society where people feel free to do as they please as long as they aren't causing harm. Does it make me uncomfortable at times? Absolutely. But it doesn't make me want to change it to fit the reality I want.
Libertarianism works fine in theory, in practice there's always a sufficiently large proportion of people who are anti-social, criminal, etc that liberty for all ends up as liberty for a few and tyranny for everyone else. Who are you going to give more liberty to, the Mafia? Columbian narco-terrorists (who would be gang-banging however many drugs were legalised)? I bet you want the Feds to crack down on them so you and your family don't get caught in the crossfire. Revelling in chaos but not wanting to be harmed? Improbable.
I wasn't born with these beliefs, they were instilled in me by my time in the military. I saw firsthand, from within the beast, what an ordered society looks like and I was appalled. Pay scales and seniority made me hate unions. Having drill sergeants tell me when I could sleep, eat, shit, shower, what to wear, when to wear it, where to be made me hate the order you crave. And ultimately, having George Bush send me overseas to a hellhole in the Middle East for no real purpose other than that I'd signed up to be a chess piece in his military made me hate the power that the government has over the individual. Yes, I took their job, and their money, but I was young and didn't know any better.
Fine.
You're in your mid to late 30s and yet you still want someone to wipe your ass for you.
Really? I've never worked for the government, I really have pulled a 'John Galt' and taken my skills and taxes to a place not so burdened by an oppressive govt bent on giving my wealth to people who can't be bothered to wipe their own asses. You could give me the respect I'm due accordingly
Oh, but no, you want other peoples asses wiped for them, you're above them, aren't you. It's always someone else that will feel the brunt of encroachment on liberty. Please.
When did I say that? There's always going to be a proportion of the population too dumb or too lazy to fend for themselves, if they have to be forced into workfare then so be it - I've never said the state should give them a free ride out of my taxes. The alternative - letting them starve and the consequential mayhem on the streets - is still worse than minimal handouts. I don't want people on minimum wage bowing and scraping and grovelling in the hope of making a tip so they can achieve subsistence living either - its demeaning for everyone and the people who enjoy the experience from a position of advantage often not of their own making are asshats TBH.
Some people just can't or won't take personal responsibility, habitual criminals, people dependent on institution living - eg military (who are over-represented in the vagrant population) blacks more so than whites - unless you have a plan to euthanise them they aren't going away, so your 'liberty for everyone' pipe-dream isn't going to work for about a hundred generations until those genes die out.
Some people are too stupid, too obnoxious or too nasty for personal responsibility for them to work for the people around them. Its reasonable to have some restrictions on everyone to limit the damage the anti-social can do, and for the govt to be empowered to step in and smack them when needed - preferably earlier rather than later.
There's a balance between liberty and tyranny. I've made the point before that in wartime every democracy reverts to totalitarian government - and it works, usually because its short and sharp and everyone understands the objective.
'Liberty for all' is never going to work, it never has, you can't show an example of it working now or ever, its a half-baked theory, nothing more.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-08 19:17:51)
