The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Here's something I don't get.
Why would we elect people who don't like government to be governors? Isn't that like hiring a vegetarian to cook at a BBQ rib joint? Doh.
26 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Frankly I think the best person to be a governor is one who sees the evil that government can become. The last thing I want is a governor (or President for that matter) who likes big government.
p3bfco, Keep going, please. So far, what I'm getting from you is that if Governors or Presidents were librarians, they would be banning books and making libraries smaller.
My love is a red, red rose, but a government is not a library.
Libraries reposit books; books contain words often arranged to present ideas. Ideas can influence, but of themselves they do no harm.
Governments always do harm. Never has been one that didn't. Governments accrue power; the more power one accrues, the more harm it does.
That said, Sarah Palin is lying, of course. She loves government and power and wishes she had control of both, with which she would do a great deal of damage.
I am a minarchist. I work to achieve the minimum possible government. It's like sandbagging along the Mississippi while nearly everyone else is trying to dump Lake Superior into it upstream.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other. — Ronald Reagan
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them. — Ronald Reagan
If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement. — Ronald Reagan
People do not make wars; governments do. — Ronald Reagan
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. — Ronald Reagan
and the clincher:
The thought of being President frightens me and I do not think I want the job. — Ronald Reagan
______________________
I don't know, lr, call me crazy, but I just get the feeling that RR didn't care much for Government.
bf, so you really think reagan didn't like government, at all? really?
don't you think it was mere hyperbole to get across the point that too much government -- a government beyond the bounds of the constitution -- was bad?
if we accept your assumption that reagan flatly hated the government, then he must've hated the military, too. after all, the military is a creature of the government.
i get your point, but i think people ought not claim that conservatives dislike government. we just dislike overgrown government.
LEXREX may speeak the truth about conservatives, but it's a shame conservatives have been unable to elect one of their own to any South Dakota statewide office or to national office for over half a century.
What has passed for "conservatism" among candidates and electees to those offices (witness Thune, GW Bush) has merely been ignorance coupled with xenophobia, homophobia, epistemophobia and love of power.
The "liberals" make their own use of these characteristics when it suits them, too.
Let's be clear, here. I never believed Ronnie for a minute. He's an actor. He said what he was supposed to say to get the greatest number of votes and to unify his party.
I'm saying that a large portion of those who rallied behind him believed him.
So yes, I'm thinking the people who bought into the Reagan BS don't like government. They think it's a necessary evil and just barely tolerate it.
well, bf, i can't say what other conservatives believed. i don't know. and i think it mmight be fruitless to debate "what conservatives think." but the ones i know well -- myself included -- never once thought government was evil.
to think so would be to belittle what our forefathers created, via the constitution -- what God has instituted, per Romans 13.
the conservatives i know -- myself included -- believe that a government that has grown beyond its constitutional limits is wrong. that is what we detest.
Thanks, guys. I think I get the overall picture of your various philosophies. Not sure on lr, actually. But I'm thinking maybe "classical liberal" as per the "Minarchist" article linked above?
So, to my question. In terms of the status quo, obviously the government is not what either of you think it should be. Presuming there are many who feel as you do, why in the world would any of them want to administer a government they don't philosophically embrace?
Do you want revolution? (as per Bob's implication) or reform? Or power? Or what?
By the way, lex and Bob, I'm assuming that you both admire and support Ron Paul.
bob, to your question, i'd say generally "no." the police powers were left to the states.
the exception may be the feds' authority over interstate commerce. but i don't believe that would excuse the current status and breadth of its police powers over drugs.
i'm more in line with clarence thomas on that issue than i am with scalia.
bf, to your question of "In terms of the status quo, obviously the government is not what either of you think it should be. Presuming there are many who feel as you do, why in the world would any of them want to administer a government they don't philosophically embrace?":
my answer is "because we want to change it, not abandon it."
I admire Ron Paul and support his proposals more than I do any other politician of notable national profile.
For minarchists, or even for "true" conservatives, our options are bleak. There is no nation whose constitution or practice thereunder suits us.
We can withdraw from any cooperation with government, which will get us labeled as kooks, hermits, and even dangerous. It's also not a very attractive life for a social animal.
We can try to change the system by working with its rules to do so. Veeeeerrrry frustrating, and ultimately fruitless. We are too outnumbered by those who worship the state.
We can try to organize a revolution. That will get us killed; likely so even if it is a peaceful revolution, based on simple non-cooperation with our "massas."
We, therefore, are destined to live out our days railing at the obvious evil being done by "elected" officials, drawing shakes of the head (and occasional remarks of qualified admiration) from those who choose to lick the hands that enslave them.
i thought you might be happy that i think the feds have too much power in re the drug issue. instead of taking comfort that you and i share some common ground, you throw out some weird accusation that i believe the state actually owns us.
that's why you get nowhere with your drug crusade, bob. you turn off potential allies. good luck with that.
i think it's a lot easier to say that the state may criminalize public intoxication, whether it be by booze, marijuana, or any other drug.
it gets a little tougher to extend laws against intoxication to either disribution of or posession of drugs. i lean toward upholding current state laws against those things, but i'd certainly be interested in the debate over why we should rescind those laws.
by the way, the state has authority to do such a thing under the police power, which has been an authority recognized since the beginning of our united states.
(the police power being the power of the state to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citizens.) of course, such a power is necessary and at the same time subject to abuse by moral busybodies and tyrants.
but again, why are you so quick to jump on our potential differences, when you could've at least momentarily glorified in our commonalities? you need to ease up, dude.
I believe there are certain things that the government should do (defense, administration of justice), there are certain things that lower levels of government should do, and anything the government does it should do well. If it can't do it well, it shouldn't do it no matter the need or demand for it.
I served 6.5 years in state government and considered it good and important work. The point of your premise is wrong. Conservatives don't hate government. We just see limits to what it should do and what it can do well and are prepared to limit its scope.
26 comments:
Frankly I think the best person to be a governor is one who sees the evil that government can become.
The last thing I want is a governor (or President for that matter) who likes big government.
p3bfco, Keep going, please. So far, what I'm getting from you is that if Governors or Presidents were librarians, they would be banning books and making libraries smaller.
My love is a red, red rose, but a government is not a library.
Libraries reposit books; books contain words often arranged to present ideas. Ideas can influence, but of themselves they do no harm.
Governments always do harm. Never has been one that didn't. Governments accrue power; the more power one accrues, the more harm it does.
That said, Sarah Palin is lying, of course. She loves government and power and wishes she had control of both, with which she would do a great deal of damage.
So Bob and p3bfco, are you at heart anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that)?
I am a minarchist. I work to achieve the minimum possible government. It's like sandbagging along the Mississippi while nearly everyone else is trying to dump Lake Superior into it upstream.
bf, who ever said they don't like government? i can't say that i've ever heard one governor say they didn't like government.
lexrex, not even Ronnie?
for lexrex:
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other. — Ronald Reagan
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them. — Ronald Reagan
If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement. — Ronald Reagan
People do not make wars; governments do. — Ronald Reagan
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. — Ronald Reagan
and the clincher:
The thought of being President frightens me and I do not think I want the job. — Ronald Reagan
______________________
I don't know, lr, call me crazy, but I just get the feeling that RR didn't care much for Government.
bf, so you really think reagan didn't like government, at all? really?
don't you think it was mere hyperbole to get across the point that too much government -- a government beyond the bounds of the constitution -- was bad?
if we accept your assumption that reagan flatly hated the government, then he must've hated the military, too. after all, the military is a creature of the government.
i get your point, but i think people ought not claim that conservatives dislike government. we just dislike overgrown government.
LEXREX may speeak the truth about conservatives, but it's a shame conservatives have been unable to elect one of their own to any South Dakota statewide office or to national office for over half a century.
What has passed for "conservatism" among candidates and electees to those offices (witness Thune, GW Bush) has merely been ignorance coupled with xenophobia, homophobia, epistemophobia and love of power.
The "liberals" make their own use of these characteristics when it suits them, too.
Let's be clear, here. I never believed Ronnie for a minute. He's an actor. He said what he was supposed to say to get the greatest number of votes and to unify his party.
I'm saying that a large portion of those who rallied behind him believed him.
So yes, I'm thinking the people who bought into the Reagan BS don't like government. They think it's a necessary evil and just barely tolerate it.
Am I wrong?
I think government is an unnecessary evil and I try to avoid it.
well, bf, i can't say what other conservatives believed. i don't know. and i think it mmight be fruitless to debate "what conservatives think." but the ones i know well -- myself included -- never once thought government was evil.
to think so would be to belittle what our forefathers created, via the constitution -- what God has instituted, per Romans 13.
the conservatives i know -- myself included -- believe that a government that has grown beyond its constitutional limits is wrong. that is what we detest.
Just asking, lexrex, does the US government have the constitutional authority to legislate that which an individual may ingest?
Thanks, guys. I think I get the overall picture of your various philosophies. Not sure on lr, actually. But I'm thinking maybe "classical liberal" as per the "Minarchist" article linked above?
So, to my question. In terms of the status quo, obviously the government is not what either of you think it should be. Presuming there are many who feel as you do, why in the world would any of them want to administer a government they don't philosophically embrace?
Do you want revolution? (as per Bob's implication) or reform? Or power? Or what?
By the way, lex and Bob, I'm assuming that you both admire and support Ron Paul.
Is that accurate?
bob, to your question, i'd say generally "no." the police powers were left to the states.
the exception may be the feds' authority over interstate commerce. but i don't believe that would excuse the current status and breadth of its police powers over drugs.
i'm more in line with clarence thomas on that issue than i am with scalia.
bf, to your question of "In terms of the status quo, obviously the government is not what either of you think it should be. Presuming there are many who feel as you do, why in the world would any of them want to administer a government they don't philosophically embrace?":
my answer is "because we want to change it, not abandon it."
I admire Ron Paul and support his proposals more than I do any other politician of notable national profile.
For minarchists, or even for "true" conservatives, our options are bleak. There is no nation whose constitution or practice thereunder suits us.
We can withdraw from any cooperation with government, which will get us labeled as kooks, hermits, and even dangerous. It's also not a very attractive life for a social animal.
We can try to change the system by working with its rules to do so. Veeeeerrrry frustrating, and ultimately fruitless. We are too outnumbered by those who worship the state.
We can try to organize a revolution. That will get us killed; likely so even if it is a peaceful revolution, based on simple non-cooperation with our "massas."
We, therefore, are destined to live out our days railing at the obvious evil being done by "elected" officials, drawing shakes of the head (and occasional remarks of qualified admiration) from those who choose to lick the hands that enslave them.
bf, "admire" and "support" are strong words for my feelings toward ron paul. but, i generally agree with most of his policies.
Lexrex suggests that a state government has the authority to legislate that which we ingest.
THat suggests that lr thinks the state owns us. Do I read that right?
i thought you might be happy that i think the feds have too much power in re the drug issue. instead of taking comfort that you and i share some common ground, you throw out some weird accusation that i believe the state actually owns us.
that's why you get nowhere with your drug crusade, bob. you turn off potential allies. good luck with that.
I just asked, lr. I did not accuse.
So do you think the states have the right to legislate what we ingest? And if so, under what authority?
i think it's a lot easier to say that the state may criminalize public intoxication, whether it be by booze, marijuana, or any other drug.
it gets a little tougher to extend laws against intoxication to either disribution of or posession of drugs. i lean toward upholding current state laws against those things, but i'd certainly be interested in the debate over why we should rescind those laws.
by the way, the state has authority to do such a thing under the police power, which has been an authority recognized since the beginning of our united states.
(the police power being the power of the state to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citizens.) of course, such a power is necessary and at the same time subject to abuse by moral busybodies and tyrants.
but again, why are you so quick to jump on our potential differences, when you could've at least momentarily glorified in our commonalities? you need to ease up, dude.
Forgive me if I'm tender. Tomorrow I will be given a criminal penalty for something no sane person believes should be a crime.
again, with a "no sane person ..." comment. i might very well agree with the law in your question, but i know i'm sane.
stop lashing out against those with whom you disagree. be gentle. go easy.
that's good advice for you in court, too.
I believe there are certain things that the government should do (defense, administration of justice), there are certain things that lower levels of government should do, and anything the government does it should do well. If it can't do it well, it shouldn't do it no matter the need or demand for it.
I served 6.5 years in state government and considered it good and important work. The point of your premise is wrong. Conservatives don't hate government. We just see limits to what it should do and what it can do well and are prepared to limit its scope.
Post a Comment