SBH made a very good point in the comments. There is a big difference between claiming a right to do something: speak, assemble, petition gov't, pursue happiness, defend ourselves, live the life we choose, and claiming a right to things: food, shelter, health care, respect, approbation. Those who choose Freedom "do". They take charge of their lives and act to make their lives better. Those who claim a right to things choose to be acted upon; to have someone else "do" for them. To be serfs.* No wonder they must also claim a right to respect; you cannot earn respect if you do nothing.
The problem comes when those who choose to have things done for them get enough political power to use the gov't to force the Free to do for the serfs and to live as serfs too. The American Voter has been chipping away at Freedom, voting for just a little bit more serfdom for all, for a little bit more security, since before the Great Depression. Looking at the present candidates for President, this trend will only get worse.
* More Medieval History: the path to serfdom = trading freedom for safety. At least in the case of Early Medieval farmers, they had a point. The various Barbarians attacking them were too strong and vicious for them to fight successfully. They needed warriors to defend their lives and a division of labor was necessary to produce the warriors. No one expected it to last a thousand years. No one expected that the grandsons of serfs would still be serfs and willing for their grandsons to be serfs. OTOH no one expected that after a thousand years of serfdom, the serfs would choose to live Free again and immigrate to America either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Well said, Gentle Kate.
Thank you for addressing this, Cousin. It's a point dear to my heart.
hey, you two. I appreciate the appreciation, but it does not cost any more to expand on your thoughts! Gimme, Gimme!
W-e-l-l s-a-i-d , G-e-n-t-l-e K-a-t-e .
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed throught this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”
—Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1700
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
—Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
Mac: LOL! and thank you for the supporting quotations. Now, how do we solve the basic problem:
"It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"
In terms of a true Democracy I don't think you can. Like Socialism, Democracy goes against human nature and is always doomed to fail. In a Democracy the majority rules and there are no individual rights in the sense of our constitution. You just have tyranny of the majority instead of an individual, at least until the population become sheep and a strong ruler takes over by promising to care for the sheep if they give him the power (for the children).
As far as I know the only representative governments that have achieved greatness were Republics. (Where would a parliamentary monarchy be grouped?). Ours' is a constitutional Republic with democratically elected leaders. This means the representatives should operate within the constitutional boundaries regardless of the wishes of the majority. They will answer to the voters at the next election but have sworn to honor the constitution. I have seen no other system with the potential to succeed. Too bad we threw it away.
human nature is the flaw in all systems.
That is why a constitution that recognizes rights as coming from God or being a birthright is essential to protect the population from the mob, which is our passionate but intemperate reaction to immediate problems. The constitution gives the veto power to wiser heads, including our own when we are thinking clearly. When the state works outside the constitutional limits it becomes a criminal organization with no legal standing and must use brute force to impose it's will on the people. Gangsters.
Democracy by it's nature is rule by man at his worst. A constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best. It may still not be good enough. History will tell us if man's shortcomings will doom him to rule by force or if he can rise above his base nature. Our founding fathers gave us as perfect a start as anyone has been able to conceive of. It is up to us to carry it forward and I am not optimistic.
I don't think Rome as a great Republic lasted that much longer than we have. When they gave up on republican principals they turned over control of the most powerful military machine the world had known to men who were completely unworthy to have power over other men. Centuries of decadence, degeneracy,and brutality followed. If, in spite of 2000 years of hind site and progress we are to fade into the night of history I hope we do it with a whimper, instead. The great men who gave us our chance deserve a better legacy. Perhaps in another one or two thousand years man will have another chance at self rule, by reason and virtue instead of force. Let us hope we have become civilized enough to make good on it. In the mean time man will live as he always has, the strong will rule by force and the weak will kneel and serve them.
You know history far better than I do. I hope you will tell me I am wrong.
B-r-a-v-o-!
Olive you guyz. 'nite
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” - James Madison
"Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom" - Alexis de Tocqueville
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - C. A. Beard
This is a cool entry, Kate. I'm really glad you wrote about this topic.
It's been hours since you wrote, Cousin. MOAR!
You've made the place I've been lookin' for...
"That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient."
-Leonard Peikoff
Is long...
I think your blog is becoming a proto-wheel, Cousin. We'll need to write "The Scrolling Song".
Or get Kate to post more often!
rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.
(It's still early, forgive me if I bullocks this up.)
Seemingly inspired by what seems to be a whole generation of folks who never get past the age where Mom and Dad can fix everything. Only as they've grown older, Mom and Dad have become the City, State and Federal government.
"Mom, he said a bad word!"
It's seemingly a tattletale mentality writ large - and government HAS to redress every little slight - real or imagined.
[My apologies if none of that makes sense, I've only had one cup of coffee and I've probably left out the whole middle]
Harper -
Some years ago, Leonard Peikoff had a one hour daily radio show in L.A. It was pretty cool listening to what was essentially a call-in program on the philosophy of individual freedom.
But (I'm guessing) it didn't do too well ratings-wise.
"We'll need to write 'The Scrolling Song'."
[*Clears throat and croaks in off-key, resonant baritone voice*]
Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin'
Rantin' and cajolin', keep them readers scrollin', K8-E...
Mac -
As regards a parliamentary monarchy, I would guess (because I don't really understand that type of system too well) where it is "grouped" depends on their constitution. Particularly as to how the constitution limits (or does not limit) the powers of the monarch and/or parliament.
It's distressing that most Americans neither understand our Constitution nor have read and comprehended the Federalist Papers. (The latter were especially an eye-opener for me. It would be very nice if fully half of the year spent on U.S. history in American high schools was spent on reading - and understanding - select tracts from the Federalist Papers...)
This might also help mitigate Kate's "basic problem" regarding the Public Treasury. Along with the obvious fact that the same gubmint which can forcibly extract money from taxpayers for a program one finds "worthy" can also take money to fund programs one opposes.
The simplest solution to this problem is severely limited gubmint (as the Founders pretty clearly intended for the feds).
Alas, this is antithetical to the current culture in our country where our confiscated money is largely used by both parties to buy votes. (As well as rule and regulate us as individuals more and more every year.)
Also what TeX said.
Post a Comment