“It is depressing to think how the government has become the enemy of the people rather then it’s representative. We have our politicians to thank for that.”
That is romanticizing the past. No government has ever been representative of the people. That is snake oil sold for votes. Political people – hell, people in general – have always been the same. The stars aligned in the 1700’s and a small group of honest men who signed the constitution/bill of rights managed to establish a huge fence in America around basic civil and legal rights with those documents, to protect said rights from their peers and other thugs at the time, as well as from politicians and thugs who have been trying to climb over and break down that fence every day since those docs were ratified. The fact that the C/BOR has even stood up to erosion this long defies belief.
====
Comment from here.
Comments
10 responses to “Romanticizing The Past”
Yeah, but…
Bad as it always was, the US government was a tiny fraction of its present size for much of our history, and not really all that capable of doing all that much damage, most of the time, with exceptions. Through some time, maybe early 20th century, one could go through life with barely any contact with the federal government. Now you can’t walk down the street, fart and scratch your ass without committing three felonies.
The two roosevelts did a pretty good job of representing the people and truman wast to much worse. Obama has tried but is not tough enough to “deal” with republican seditionists. Also lincoln was pretty good too!
Nothing is stopping Obama from ending Prohibition except his hatred for Black people.
So the choice is “Prohibitionist that Hate Blacks” OR “Anarchists who love Freedom?” That seems a bit narrow. Can’t one desire order, discipline, self control and limited government without being a bigot or loony?
Limited Government of the people can (and must, in my opinion) include prohibition. In fact, governments are in many cases created to enforce prohibition. Prohibition of actions that the people who created them and the leadership deems destructive. Hopefully that Government is flexible to the will of the people and the people have some say in what IS destructive. North Korea’s idea of what is destructive and the Netherlands idea differ in extremes.
Prohibition is not the horrid concept that many suggest. I don’t think that many would argue that Government’s Prohibition on Murder is a bad idea.
It’s the application of Government over-reach and the subversion of the will of a wise and educated people that is the problem.
Obama’s latest totalitarian rant:
“And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.”
It got scant review among the main stream news sources. Can you imagine the furor that would erupt if a Republican POTUS had uttered the words “…we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues…”?
There are a lot more important things then alowing you to buy dope!
Indeed there are. Please read the post above you.
Pot – and other drugs – aren’t really the issue. The issue is how much control the government has over our own control of our own lives.
You want someone to tell you what to do. I want them to get the **** out of my way.
And that is the difference between a liberal (and most conservatices) and a libertarian.
“a small group of honest men who signed the constitution/bill of rights managed to establish a huge fence…”
Many of whom were afterwards involved in government. I think, perhaps, we at least started with a half-decent bunch. But they were politicians. Otherwise, slavery would have been abolished then and there. (That’s why I said half-decent.)
Actually Kathy, if they hadn’t been politicians there would have been no compromise on slavery–the northern colonies would have formed a federal state with no slavery, and the southern colonies would have formed another in which slavery was legal. Most likely, they’d have been at each others’ throats over control of the Mississippi Valley inside of 20 years.
At any rate, there’s no particular reason to believe that abolition would have been the result.
[…] we don’t have to go so far as Watertown to find that kind of opinion. It comes up in our comments. The gentleman in question wants order. I wonder if he has considered prison. Lots of order in […]