Making the World a Better Place through Government
This time of year is crazy for parents, especially a parent that is at home with her kids all day. As anyone with kids can tell you, they are typically very wound up this time of year.
I have not had much time to blog lately, but I will post as often as I can.
I know most of you are busy with family and holiday things, too. Either that or you all just decided that my blog sucks. Traffic has been slower this week and I expect that trend to continue in the coming weeks.
Those of you that continue to stop by, please know that I appreciate your readership and I will post as often as I can.
This week J.D. Ryan and I have been having an ongoing conversation in the comments of this post about the government’s role in regulating business.
That got me thinking about what I see as the major flaws in today’s political thinking in the US.
On the right, there are those that understand the need for smaller government, yet continue to try to use the government to advance their social causes. What they do not seem to understand is that any use of the government to advance one set of beliefs over the other serves as consent for an opposing group to come along in the future and do the same thing, with an opposing set of beliefs.
In my view, we on the right are better off sticking to the small government view and fighting the culture wars in the private sector, preferably in our communities, one-on-one.
On the left, there exists the same tendency to use the government to advance a social cause. The cause takes a different form, though. In their case, it is the cause of so-called “economic justice,” whereby the “rich” have their excess taken and redistributed to the “poor.”
From my perspective both are doing the same thing. Both are trying to make the world a better place by righting wrongs through power of government.
On the right, they just want to save babies from being murdered and return to the days of the married, two-parent family, which experts agree, would solve many of the terrible ills facing today’s youth.
On the left, they just want to help the poor and make sure that in this, the wealthiest of nations, no one is left out in the cold, literally or figuratively.
Yet both sides continue to blame the other for misusing the government. Both thinks the other side is wrong for usurping the rights of the other.
In that regard, both are correct.
The right has no grounds for criticizing the left for their big-government liberalism as long as they themselves continue to call for expanding the government into people’s private lives. They lose the high-ground, even if their cause is just.
The left, too, has lost the high-ground when they point the finger at the right for forcing their values on others, when they too seek to do the same with their own values.
The worst possible outcome is the new group emerging that seeks to fuse social conservatism, with economic populism - the worst of both sides, from the standpoint of freedom and liberty.
Why can’t we just get the government out of it? Can we not trust ourselves as civilized people to do the right thing on our own without a tyrannical federal government?
6 comments:
I get so sick of the left accusing the right of wanting to impose their values on others.
The right DOES impose their values on others, but that is not the point. What I get sick of is that the left waxes indignant about it, yet they do the very same thing, though they will deny it to the end.
Don't believe me? Trans-fat in New York City anyone?
Charity, your comparisons of the flaws on both sides were pretty good. I would add one more, both sides want to be 'left alone'... righties to make money however they see fit, or practice whatever religion/gun ownership whatever and lefties want personal behavior left alone as well, although it usually tends towards more issues regarding sexuality, childbearing/drug issues.
But your question...Can we not trust ourselves as civilized people to do the right thing on our own without a tyrannical federal government?
I haven't really seen enough compelling evidence that there are enough intelligent AND well-intentioned people living in this country to 'do the right thing'. With the amount of people we have in this country that still believe in the Rapture, for example, or who so easily bought into the Iraq war, it's quite obvious that the critical thinking skills necessary to do the right thing consistently are not there. I'm not saying that the gov't is necessarily the answer either, but we have a very deep and wide anti-intellectual streak in this country that doesn't exactly inspire trust.
Look how people were reacting to civil unions in this state, with the most ridiculous arguments...'what's next, pedophilia and incest?' Am I gonna trust the 'will of the people' who think like that? Too many people in this country confuse 'feeling' with 'thinking'. I think that I fear them more than I do the government.
Odum - No, this is not the right-wing space. This is Charity Tensel's space. I welcome all comments. I know you usually welcome my comments, too, or at least don't delete them. I just feel like your place is more of a Democrats meeting space. Maybe it's the collaborative nature of it. I don't know.
Anyhoo, I totally think the government should "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty." I just happen to believe that "securing the blessing of liberty" requires keeping the government's grubby paws out of our business (and businesses, and pockets). I also believe that the general welfare is best promoted by having a free people. Again, keeping the government out of our lives.
I disagree that your "side" is trying to keep the government as small as possible. I do not see a government healthcare system, mandated wages and benefits, income redistribution, price controls on gasoline and pharmaceuticals, (I could do on), as keeping the government as small as possible.
The distinction I see between other groups and the government, and why I do not see the gov. as an extension of the individual, is that the government is the only one of those groups you listed that is a real threat to our freedom, ie. it can imprison, seize property, and even kill, without penalty.
I don't think that is an article of faith; I think it is based on the real threat that the government poses to our freedom.
Sheesh, you guys complain about the Bush administration violating our freedoms all of the time. How can you not see my point?
A pleasure, as always, Odum. Thanks for stopping by.
Hey J.D., I see your point. I know too many stupid people to not, but as I said in my comment to Odum, which obviously you have not read yet, since I just posted it, the government is the body that has real power over us. If we stuck to the Constitution, the local governments, which are an extension of the local people for the most part, would be barred from violating any of our rights. How do you think these people you are referring to can hurt you then? It is only through the power of government that they can affect you.
Chanman said: "What I get sick of is that the left waxes indignant about it, yet they do the very same thing, though they will deny it to the end."
I feel your pain, man.
Using your analogy, here's how I see it. If you set out to build your house as small as possible, but the scope of your project ends up leading you to build part of your house on my land, too, well, regardless of how you see the function of a house, it is too big.
When the government is expanded to include rights that were not originally intended, the government begins to trample on other rights.
Taking the money of others in order to fulfill your idea of "promoting the general welfare" kind of puts a damper on the liberty of the people you are taking from.
Another way to put it, using your analogy, you are asking me to pay for your larger house, even though I am happy with my house being small (even if the parents have to move in). And further, you are really asking me to live in a house that I find much too big.
Post a Comment