The Roman empire had Caesar, Caligula, Nero, Augustus, etc...
Different presidents, but it was still ultimately the Roman Empire.
The USA has had many presidents.... (Get it?)
Judge Napolitano has written a brilliant expose simple stating why government is the root of our problems and not the solution...
Like I have always said, "If government were benevolent and the answer to all out problems than a big government country like the Soviet Union would have been hugely successful. But they weren't."
The good judge sums it all up in one great sentence:
"Unlike an individual or a well-run corporation, government is not motivated by how efficient it can be, but rather by how lucrative it can be for those associated with it, and how those who run the government can stay in power." (emphasis mine).
The above is exactly correct. No matter the problem, the government's answer is always to expand upon itself. That is the nature of all government.
Who was in charge when the Twin Towers were attacked? The Bush Administration. Did anyone lose their jobs? No. The government's powers and reach were expanded.
Some will say that the government is here to protect the little guy. Oh really? How's that working out for the now nearly 46 million Americans on Food Stamps? Or the now 25% of all American children in poverty? Has the government cut the Pentagon budget to help pay for these poor people? Nah.
Here's another good one that never ceases to amaze me: "The Civil War: The North went to war with the South to end slavery." Ha! Oh really? Is that why some Northern States still allowed slavery for two years after the war started? And, think about this, since when has the USA ever gone to war to protect the rights of dark-skinned people? Never! Get real if you think we have.... Or do you think we are bringing democracy to those people in the Middle East too?
Have you never read "War is a Racket"? The USA only goes to war for economic aims. Never to protect minorities.
Here are some more great bits from Judge Napolitano's article:
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney don't want to shrink government. They love government. They just want to manage it better. The problem with that approach is that government by its very design is always mismanaged. The centralization of decision-making amplifies the effects of poor decisions while disincentivizing prudent ones.
Unlike an individual or a well-run corporation, government is not motivated by how efficient it can be, but rather by how lucrative it can be for those associated with it, and how those who run the government can stay in power. Someone who was philosophically opposed to government domination of the housing market wouldn't perpetuate it by taking one red penny of taxpayer money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, like the former Speaker did, whether he calls himself a historian or a lobbyist. Someone philosophically opposed to government domination of the health care market would never offer up government as the solution to the problem of the uninsured, like the former governor of Massachusetts did, since the problem of the uninsured was created by government's involvement in the health care market in the first place.The federal government does not need an efficient manager. That's a pipe dream based on the noble but flawed premise that government can be made to operate as a business. It cannot. Business is subject to the forces of free choice, supply and demand, and competition. Can you imagine government subjecting itself to the forces of competition? Can you imagine government permitting us to ignore it?.... (Read the rest at Lew Rockwell...) http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano34.1.html
Libertarians, leftists, anarchists, and others, love to talk of the withering away of government and coercive force, but in reality, they seem to usually wind up replacing it with something as bad or even worse.
Is the idea of the withering away of government simply a utopian notion? If not, why then does violence and general crime get so bad with the breakdown of government?
I'm thinking of places in both extremes, from the poorest to the richest. If one looks at Liberia, in the last ca. 15 years, which had wars that got so bad that they were using children that were kindergarten age. Another example, when the police went on strike in Montreal, which if anything is not a poor city, ca. 1968, there was more crime in one day than what would happen in an entire year.
If the thesis of many outside of the status quo is that governments are evil, or at best, amoral, why then, have they been so popular for so long? Does the problem lie with government, or does it moreso lie with human nature?
Without the proper layers of guidance, knowledge, and overall structure in ones life, is man a noble virtuous, pure creature, or an evil or amoral animal?
My current hunch is that one of the large drives of governments is to channel violence that would have been committed domestically into business and foreign affairs. Or is this notion totally wrong?
All the best
Dear Mr. Nobody,
As usual, my friend, you ask pertinent and intelligent questions. May I beg your pardon and answer your question with a question (or two)? Is your notion wrong? Do we need government to prevent crime and deaths? Do you consider people basically good or basically evil? Do you also consider the idea that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as being true? If so, to the last one, then I ask that you consider what has happened in the 20th century with big governments, including (but not limited to) USA under Lincoln, Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, USA under FDR, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, etc. Under the rule of these large governments (and others) more than 160 million people died worldwide from government instituted wars. How does that stack up against the Liberia or Montreal examples (or any others that you can find)? Please refer to: "Wars and Genocides of the 20th Century".
Oh and Mr. Nobody (and everyone) I hope 2012 sees you and yours with health, happiness and prosperity.
Hello again Mike!
Do we need government? Although it seems that many people believe it, I'm not 100% certain of that. Why is it that most people can't think of a world without it? Why is it that many people in the absence of government don't seem to revert to a baser norm, but fall even further?
I consider humans at birth to be neither good nor evil, but neutral. Most likely, to prevent most crimes and deaths what a human needs is good parents. "Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man."
Does power corrupt absolutely? Even though many government officials act G*d-like, and they may dream of absolute power, the world is finite, and so there is a limit to both their corruption and power. Although a member of parliament in any first world country today, probably has the possibility due to increased wealth and power in our modern era, to rival the degree of power and corruption of an ancient Roman emperor.
Do we need governments to prevent crime and deaths? It seems that a certain percentage of people seem to need something beyond themselves to prevent their baser actions affecting other people. It seems that industrial and post-industrial societies are very strongly correlated with governments to function. Is there a modern society that doesn't have a government? Or even a limited one?
Sure wars break things and kill people, that is, when they aren't killing things and breaking people. Although I have not calculated changing demographics, poor health care, malnutrition killed approximately 12 Mio. humans a year in 2006. I propose that in most of those places there is no or very little of what can be called a modern government. If one multiplies for about 15 years, that rivals all war in the last century, does it not?
My point about Montreal and Liberia, is that when governments break down, it encourages enough people, even a small percentage, to commit horrible acts against the many. There are various statistics, but it seems in most societies, there is a small percentage, 1-4% of the people, call them anti-so, sociopaths, criminals, what have you, who cause 70-90% of the crime, violence, or trouble, for the public.
Post a Comment