The Washington Times recently reported (“Harry Reid: ‘Government is Inherently Good’”) that,
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he can’t understand why the tea party remains popular, given its similarity to the anarchist movement and its steadfast opposition to the ‘inherently good’ government.”
“Inherently good government”?
“Inherently good government”?!
Are you kidding me?!!
Has Senator Reid lost his mind? Is he becoming overwhelmed by his sense of guilt? Or is he merely so ignorant that he doesn’t understand that this country started with the presumption that government was a “necessary evil” wherein the “necessary” was often debatable, but the “evil” was virtually certain?
George Washington implied the inherently wicked nature of government when he said, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Washington surely didn’t see government as “inherently good”. He saw it as, at best, a dangerous servant. At best. Necessary, perhaps. But always dangerous.
Washington’s remark was not offhand. The Founders agreed and attempted to incorporate Washington’s sentiment into the very structure of the Constitution.
We’re supposed to enjoy three distinct branches of government (separation of powers) in order to keep government fighting within itself rather than attacking the American people. We’re supposed to enjoy the blessing of Liberty and the correlative “limited government”.
If government were “inherently good,” why would the Constitution seek to “limit” that “inherent goodness”? If something is good, shouldn’t we want more of it? But, when it came to government, the Founders wanted less. They wanted the least possble bit of the “necessary evil”.
The fundamental premise for “limited government” is the belief that government, though necessary, is always dangerous and susceptible to committing great evil.
• According to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, we’re guaranteed the rights to speak, publish, worship and even shoot (if necessary) in order “to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution. Those constitutional powers are held only by the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.
Thus, the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the people of the States of the Union against the federal government. That’s more evidence that the Founders didn’t trust government any further than they could throw the Washington Monument.
The genius of The Constitution of the United States is that, in its original intent, it is an inherently anti-government document. That genius was based on recognition of government as inherently dangerous and at least inherently conducive to evil.
Nevertheless, Senator Reid continued to complain,
“‘We have a situation where this country has been driven by the tea party for the last number of years,’ adding that though anarchists ‘were different than the tea party because they were violent,’ but the two movements do have similarities.
“‘Anarchists . . . did not believe in government in any level and they acknowledge it.’ The tea party ‘kind of hides that,’ he said. ‘They don’t say they’re against the government, but that is what it all amounts to.’
“Tea partyers ‘throw a monkey wrench into every form of government, whether it’s local, state or federal,’ Mr. Reid said. But he can’t understand why: ‘Government is not inherently bad. Government is inherently good.’”
On a personal level, Senator Reid’s belief in an “inherently good” government is kind of sad. Senator Reid seems defensive. I suspect that, after a lifetime of dedication to Big Government and presumption that government was good, and more government even better, Mr. Reid may be starting to have doubts. Perhaps, he’s beginning to see that he’s played a powerful role in advancing the growth of a government that, in the end, is a parasite likely to consume and destroy The United States of America.
And it’s not just Senator Reid, or even the Democrats that have been gutting this country. The Republicans (except for the Tea Partyers) are just as guilty. For the past 40 years, the Democrats and Republicans have become the two branches of the America’s “one party system”—the “Big Government Party”. For the most part, the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrat Party wants “Big Government NOW!” while the Republican Party want “Big Government SOON!”
If Senator Reid’s inability to understand the Tea Party movement and his determination to defend decades of dedication to “big government” is sad on a personal level—on a political level, it’s grand.
I.e., one of the most powerful politicians may be defensive about Big Government. If so, Hooray! That implies that he either knows that the forces of big government are waning—or he’s become embarrassed and ashamed of his own support for big government. If so, big government may be on the verge of a dramatic decline. It’s hard to imagine, but there might a more limited government in our near future.
• Here’s a story in Daily Events that illuminates the dangerous, potentially evil nature of big government:
“It’s not terribly surprising to learn that the Boston bombers, and their parents, were beneficiaries of our lavish welfare system. Welfare dependency didn’t keep Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the elder terrorist, from driving a flashy silver Mercedes and dressing in designer clothes.
“His mother thanked America for its generosity by allegedly trying to steal $1600 in expensive clothes from a department store, blowing off her court date, and fleeing the country. From her current digs in Dagestan, she howled that her sons are the victims of a government conspiracy, and topped it off with a cry of ‘Allahu Akbar’ for good measure.
“To put it mildly, this family doesn’t seem to have “assimilated” to American life very well.”
Exactly. Since “Big Government” offers to provide welfare, financial assistance and subsidies to both legal and even illegal aliens, it reduces the pressure to “assimilate” into the US culture.
Why learn to speak English if the government will provide you with “bilingual” information over the phones and on government documents? Why not fly a Mexican flag in this country so long as the American people will subsidize you with free medical care and welfare?
What I’m suggesting is that without welfare, every alien has an increased incentive to “assimilate” as rapidly as possible so as to find jobs and employment. Want job? Learn the language and learn to dress like an “American”. Becoming an “American” is not required by law. But, for most aliens, if you want to eat, you must assimilate.
However, with welfare, the incentive to embrace American values and assimilate into the culture is diminished. Thanks to welfare, multiculturalism becomes more common. The nation’s cultural values become increasingly adulterated. As our values fragment, so does our nation. Multiculturalism can divide a nation and make it more susceptible to fragmentation or even conquest.
• Look at the African-American community. How many young blacks would be wearing their caps cockeyed or pants down around their hip bones if they couldn’t depend on welfare to subsidize them? You cut welfare, make people start looking for jobs, and you’ll increase their motivation emulate their employer’s system of values. Without welfare, it won’t take long to realize that so long as you’re wearing your pants around your hips, you’re not going to eat.
In the instance of the Tsarnaev family, would they have found the time and resources to allegedly build their bombs if they hadn’t been subsidized by Big Government’s welfare? Without welfare, would they even have found time to keep hating the US? Without the subsidy of “inherently good” Big Government, would the Tsarnaev boys have been too busy working to plant bombs?
Welfare diminishes the need to assimilate. Welfare helps to subsidize an “us against them” mentality that’s conducive to hatred, violence and national disintegration.
I understand that some welfare is necessary and perhaps desirable. But no matter how big government grows, there shouldn’t be any welfare for any alien who has not yet become a citizen. If an alien can’t support himself in this country, don’t subsidize the incompetents—send them home. That’s particularly true for illegal aliens.
Senator Reid’s “inherently good” Big Government sees it as necessary and desirable to subsidize everyone—even potential bomb makers. However, if more people begin to question that “inherently good” presumption, the “inherently bad” divisions in our national culture may be begin to diminish.
• Here’s another testimony to the “inherently good” nature of government. Mises Daily reports in “Is Pot Too Potent to Legalize” that, thanks to Big Government’s laws against marijuana, pot’s potency has grown so powerful that it’s beginning to scare its users:
“Marijuana is much stronger than it used to be. Lots of the strains for sale at medical marijuana dispensaries are approaching 25 percent THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the compound in the plant known for getting you wicked high. . . . [T]he average potency of marijuana was less than 4 percent in 1984 with the highest potency samples testing near 10 percent. The average potency was less than .5 percent in the 1970s. This indicates a long term trend of higher potency of marijuana. . . . [M]any marijuana consumers consider marijuana to be too potent and even dangerous.”
“A recent study in the British journal Lancet confirms that marijuana is considered more dangerous now, surprisingly ranking it the seventh most dangerous drug, legal or illegal.”
Q: Why has marijuana become “too potent”?
A: Big Government’s War on Drugs.
Why? The “Iron Law of Prohibition”.
“The iron law of prohibition . . . states that ‘the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes . . . [W]hen drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms. If all alcohol beverages are prohibited, a bootlegger will be more profitable if he smuggles highly potent distilled liquors than if he smuggles the same volume of small beer. In addition, the black-market goods are more likely to be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances. The government cannot regulate and inspect the production process, and harmed consumers have no recourse in law. Therefore the ‘iron law’ says that the more you try to enforce prohibition (bigger budgets, larger penalties, etc.) the more potent and dangerous prohibited drugs become.’”
In other words, the more money Big Government spends waging its “inherently good” War on Drugs, the more powerful and dangerous the prohibited drugs will become.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, pot’s potency has increased by 50 times since the 1970s. What was once an amusing “loco weed” is now truly dangerous.
• In the aggregate, whatever government touches, government generally screws up.
Nevertheless government keeps on touching, meddling and interfering in almost every aspect of American life.
Because, despite all evidence to the contrary, the treasonous whores in the Cat House on the Potomac are composed of Democrats and Republicans who are dumb enough (or treasonous enough) to allege that government is “inherently good”.
If government is so good, please explain the national debt which is probably over $200 trillion.
Who is going to pay that debt? Anyone?
No. The debt is too great to ever be actually repaid. That means creditors will be robbed by “inherently good” government.
Who is supposed to pay that debt?
Our children and grandchildren.
Suppose your neighbor got hold of your credit card and managed to max it out by running up a debt of $25,000? Would you argue still that your neighbor was “inherently good”?
If not, how is it that an “inherently good government” can run up a $200 trillion dollar debt and leave it to be repaid by some future generation who might not even be born when the debt is incurred? How can any decent adult or institution leave that kind of debt to children and still claim to be “inherently good”?
How can anyone be stupid enough to suppose that there is some “inherent good” in imposing such a financial burden on their own children and grandchildren?
The very size of the national debt is proof that government is not “inherently good” but is instead—just as George Washington said 230 years ago— a “dangerous servant” who is likely to be “inherently bad”.
• How much more evidence do we need before we admit that the Road to Hell is not only paved with “good intentions” but also with the presumption that government is “inherently good”?
Maybe not so much.
The American people may be waking up to the inherent dangers of government, in general, and of Big Government, in particular.
World Net Daily (WND) reports (“Americans Fear Government More than Terror”) that,
“According to a recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings [in A.D. 2001], Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep citizens safe . . . . Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in A.D. 2001, the 71% of Americans agreed to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism. But when asked by a recent Fox News survey “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” 45% answered No to the question. Only 43% answered Yes.
That current survey marks the first time since the 9/11 attacks in A.D. 2001 that more people answered No than answered Yes. Thus, over the past 12 years, the percentage of Americans willing to suffer a loss of liberty has fallen from 71% to 43%. That’s evidence of a big move back towards liberty.
• Another poll conducted by the Washington Post produced similar results. The Post asked, “Which worries you more—that government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”
48% of respondents worry the government will go too far. Only 41% worry it won’t go far enough.
The tide that favored big, bigger and biggest government since the FDR administration in the 1930s is beginning to wane.
This can’t be a surprise. Illegal aliens have been encouraged to invade this country by “inherently good government”. “Inherently good government” has invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and longs for a chance to bomb Syria and Iran. But, all of this “inherently good government” has impoverished many Americans, destroyed much of our industrial base, and driven us into a “Great Recession” and possible “Greater Depression”. As a result, the American people are too broke to afford to fund more growth of “inherently good government”.
Our “inherently good government’s” ability to borrow more currency to go even deeper into debt is also impaired. Who will lend our overly-indebted government more currency besides the Federal Reserve? And that’s not really a loan; that’s printing more currency out of thin air to inflate the fiat dollar.
Point: “Inherently good government” has driven the nation—and the government itself—towards poverty and bankruptcy. As we approach that bankruptcy, we can’t afford any more, or perhaps even as much, “inherently good government”.
We’re coming to a point where a majority of Americans—like America’s Founding Fathers—will recognize and openly admit that government is “inherently bad”.
Those, like Senator Reid, who remain adamant that government is “inherently good” are about to be cast off to the wayside like a pack of slobbering buffoons.
The transition from the presumption that government is “inherently good” to the presumption that government is, at best, a necessary evil may be painful. But even so, in the long run, that transition will be good because it will constitute recognition of a fundamental truth: government is not “inherently good”. Never was. Never will be.