"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority ... the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster


"There is no worse tyranny than forcing a man to pay for what he does not want just because you think it would be good for him."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

Friday, September 19, 2014

Origin of Government

Morgan over at House of Eratosthenes got me going on this subject with this post.

My perspective on this is so divergent from his that I decided to make it my own stand alone post on my blog here.  I couldn't just comment on his blog.

For the purpose of this discussion, trying to keep it in as narrow and controllable forum as possible, I'm going to define Column A and Column B in my own terms and maybe give them catchier names.

Severian says Column A people are:  "A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual."   The only problem I have with that definition is that there is no need to cede any rights.  This is a misconception that has crept into our republican society.  Just because I agree with forming a local government with a police force and courts does not mean that I cede any rights or any sovereignty.  I simply LEND my authority to those entities as a matter of convenience.  I refuse to give up or cede anything to government.  To do so would be to misunderstand and negate the very words of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Until I come up with something better, I'll call the Column A group, "Indies."

The Column B group is made up of people who cover a wide range, as surprising as that may seem.  At the worst end of the spectrum are those who are ravenously power hungry and mean to rule others. Such people have learned to parlay their narcissism and sociopathy into lucrative careers. At the mildest end of the spectrum are those who desire to be ruled under the guise of having security and believe that all others should feel the same way, believe the same way, and by God we will give whatever power necessary to our champions to enforce it.  Probably the greatest rallying cry of this crowd is; "There Ought To Be A Law."  So, I'll call them the TOTBALS.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  If it protects ONE child . . .  Such are the self-proclaimed "liberals" who justify the most intolerant, totalitarian government for the purpose of enforcing what they believe is best for everybody at the point of a gun.  And yes, there are more than enough of such people proudly bearing the labels of Republican and Conservative.  They are just as bad.  Don't talk to me about how evil abortion is and then in the next breath defend the so-called "war on drugs."  Shut. UP.  Don't you dare defend subsidies for industries and corporations and even farmers and then gripe about WIC and food stamps.  All of the policies and bloated bureaucracies of government need to be destroyed or scaled back to make none of those things necessary.

The Indies are those who would love to not need any courts or any police or any government, except for the fact that they recognize that human nature won't allow it.  Indies recognize that anarchy is not viable because there will always be evil people who mean to abuse other people, innocent people, and so we must establish and ordain at least some limited form of government in order to restrain the evil.
The biggest problem in this scenario is that the true-to-the-core Indies who would be the best and most trustworthy at executing that role don't really want the job.  They just want to be left alone to pursue a multitude of worthwhile goals and just taking care of themselves and their loved ones.

Unfortunately, the kind of people who actively seek to get the jobs in government are the TOTBALS.  And they actually think of themselves as really good people who are doing us a favor by sacrificing and working for far less than they are actually worth.

I get extremely irritated by anyone who thinks that the American Revolution and the French Revolution had anything remotely in common.  Even if you don't want to study them in depth, at least read "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens.  The former was a righteous attempt to redress grievances and establish a proper government.  The latter was just an excuse to go on a cathartic blood-bath over a corrupt Church-monarchy cabal.

I don't know if there is much more that I should add to this post.  Let me know.

4 comments:

  1. Moshe Ben-David: I get extremely irritated by anyone who thinks that the American Revolution and the French Revolution had anything remotely in common. Even if you don't want to study them in depth, at least read "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens. The former was a righteous attempt to redress grievances and establish a proper government. The latter was just an excuse to go on a cathartic blood-bath over a corrupt Church-monarchy cabal.

    Both revolutions began based on liberal Enlightenment ideals, but they diverged due to different circumstances. In the American colonies, there were already working legislatures and governments, so the American Revolution merely replaced the head of government. In France, the monarchy had concentrated nearly all power to itself, and the wealth disparity was much greater than in America. There were few institutions that weren't tainted by association to the monarchy, so when the French Revolution occurred, it resulted in overturning nearly all institutions of government and religion. Nonetheless, there were plenty of those in France who supported the Revolution who wanted a constitutional monarchy or other liberal system of government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your name suggestions. And I totally agree that "lend" is the better term to use when discussing rights transferred to a central government. I used "cede" because that's how I've seen it phrased most often in discussions of political philosophy -- I believe Hobbes and Locke both used it, and they were the ones I had most in mind when I was thinking about Column A / the Indies.

    I also added a link to this post at Rotten Chestnuts.

    PS I love your sidebar picture. Is that a shofar?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, that is a shofar. Miss having one.

    Thank you for acknowledging the difference between "lend" and "cede," because it truly is important that we use the right words. The evil ones are very happy to use such ignorance against us.

    And thank you for the link as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since I have the feeling the A/B (Indie/TOBAL) distinction will come up again, I'll do my best to use "lend" henceforth.

    On a personal note, I'd suggest saving yourself the time and energy and just banning Zachriel now. As you've probably seen over at Morgan's place, they'll just keep cutting and pasting their scripted nonsense over and over. Don't think of it as the lefty trick of banning speech (since he never actually says anything); it's the vigorous exercise of your right of free association.

    ReplyDelete

Please don't make me disable comments because you couldn't maintain decorum and civil discourse. You can disagree all you want to, just don't get nasty.