See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Socialist? Fascist? Statist!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Published: Nov 3, 2008
Author: n
Post Date: 2008-11-03 17:26:21 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 101
Comments: 6
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Christine (#0)
I hate Big Government Statists.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
www.nolanchart.com/article1538 .html On an article I wrote recently, someone asked the question "How do statists view the Constitution?" I think this is an excellent question to tackle. First, however, a disclaimer. Read at the risk of being offended. If you don't like the views I state, and wish to respond, please do so in a reasoned manner. If you disagree with me strongly and think I am misguided, then a rational response such as "You are wrong because of X, Y, and Z" looks much better and can be responded to better than "You are wrong and a communist and I hope you die in a fire". That being said... A statist has certain central axioms of belief. I've referred to these in other columns before. Basically they revolve around the idea that the people cannot be trusted, that centralized power can do more than individuals each seeking only to help themselves, and that human dynamics (mob theory, group theory) is reality and can't be ignored simply because you wish things were different. In this light, the Constitution is seen mainly as a framework, somewhat like building a house. It was laid out to describe the basis and operational constraints of a federal government. It was also intended, very clearly, to be changable and flexible over time, or the Founders would not have included language and proceedures on how to change it. The fact that it is a fluid document and was DESIGNED as a fluid document indicates that nothing within the document is an absolute. Much like archtectural plans, there is the concept in the Statist mindset that the Constitution sets the BASELINE and the growth of the government thereof must match realistic needs. Strict constitutionalism irritates statists for two reasons. One, clearly the founders intended limited government. We have never denied that. They ALSO clearly intended that power be limited to fairly well off, white landowners. Limited government controlled mostly by a limited subclass was the norm back then. I don't blame the founders for framing things that way. Governments back then were all tyrannies founded on the ridiculous idea that a single "noble" family somehow had a mandate from God to do whatever they liked, and a Parlament who would take away rights whenever they felt like. The goal of that first document , thus, was to make a new form of government that did not allow for such abuses. The Constitution suceeds in this. I think, as a statist, I have no problems with such pro forma, intellectualized limits. The government should not have the right to tell you what you can or cannot say, or what the press can or cannot report on. It shouldn't tell you that you can't own a gun or that you have no right to a trial by jury. NO statist will ever suggest that the government should have supreme power. Rather, we suggest the government should have power it needs. If you want to believe that I'm a sub-human because I'm black and shout it on the street corners, you have every right to do that. You do NOT have the right to print that up in a book and have it inserted into the school curricula simply becuase you believe it -- the government CAN regulate what you say in that regard for the public good. You should be able to own a gun -- any gun you like, really. But to suggest the government has no right to know who owns it, to make you register it, to require you to prove you know how to shoot before letting you pack it around in public -- these are for the public good, again. Statists think government expansion for the public good is always better than limited government that only is good for limited numbers of people, and using the Constitution to subvert that on the basis of "what the founders intended" is , well, inane. The second and more important reason Statists dislike strict interpretation is that the world has changed immensely since the Constitution was written. You could argue that, up until the American Revolution, the English had the "freeist" society in the world. After the Revolution, America did. That does not mean that the Consitution is the perfect document that can never be improved. Trying to interpret modern complexity through the lens of a document over 200 years old is far beyond merely stubborn into the realm of insanity. You simply CANNOT DO IT. Thus, Statists believe the Constitution should be a guideline for the expansion of government. Anything that the Constitution does not disallow that is for the public good, the government can and should be involved in. Statists typically do not view the Constitution as a compact, or a binding agreement, since it has been altered signifigantly by amendments. Because, let's be honest. The original founders would NEVER have EVER agreed with the concept that a black man or a woman would run for President. Suggesting that we must stick to the "original intent" of the Constitution and it's wording is implying that We know what that intent was -- doubtful That the original intent matches what a majority of the country wants -- again, doubtful That the reason we are going with the original intent is for the good of the majority of the population - dubious at best, considering history That the original intent is even valid any more -- extremely doubtful. How do you apply free speech rules to cyberspace? We look at the bill of rights as a set of declared "offlimits" areas to government expansion. However, some pieces are so vaguely written as to invite hair pulling. The 10th Amendment should be struck and rewritten so that "the Federal Government cannot usurp the powers so delegated to the States". Granting "powers" to the people without a framework for their usage is merely airy language. All in all, a Statist does not "revere" the Constitution anymore than one reveres a nice set of blueprints or a detailed set of plans. The founders and writers were all intellegent, honest men who put together an outstanding document that was ahead of it's times in fairness and openness. But when the needs of reality and society clash with the elegant design, the design must give way. Limiting the power of the government will not make things better. It might allow some people to pay less taxes , or not have to bother not polluting the environment, or not bother with helping other countries and then wondering why we get dragged into WW III through such isolationist activity. But it won't help the Average American. The average American was not helped by strict adhereance but by amendments, not by limited government but by government expansion. It was government expansion that helped us get through the Great Depression which was brought on by lassiez faire, free market, unregulated policies. It was the government who brought an end to civil rights abuses after blacks had been lynched for years and had dogs set on them. It was the government who stopped the huckster medicines of snake oil salesmen, the government who protected our environment and state parks, the government who put together public works prorams and Social Security without which millions would have died in poverty or had to sell all they own simply to make ends meet. To suggest that the Constitution's "original intent" is somehow more important than the reality of what people need is to suggest that, really, the PEOPLE don't matter, only the desires of those who don't like government.
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. — Lysander Spooner
See? There is a difference! Obama's little dot is about 40 pixels to the left of McCain's little dot.
And people say I'm crazy for thinking they are the same. (eyerollingsmilie)
We will be reduced to the very beginning..the Lord and the serfs. And blacks cry about slavery?
And blacks cry about slavery? Think further back. No kidding.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#2. To: A Statist View of the Constitution (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: christine, Ferret Mike (#0)
#4. To: christine (#0)
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#5. To: Rotara (#1)
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
We will be reduced to the very beginning..the Lord and the serfs.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest