Another break from The Thesis. . .
I found this piece by Doctor Zero, "The First Sign of Corruption," to be strangely warming. As an American living in Europe and watching his country from abroad, I am becoming more and more libertarian in my political views. This may or may not be a good thing. Stay tuned.
Concluding paragraph:
The mythic ideal of Cincinnatus, the selfless citizen-legislator who reluctantly leaves his farm to serve the Republic, is incompatible with the combination of endless incumbency and gigantic amounts of government power. We are foolish to place our trust in a system that requires an impossible level of virtue from politicians to function as designed. A limited government can better protect the economic health of its citizens by policing corruption from the private sector, under the direction of term-limited representatives who will never become worth the risk of buying off. The larger government becomes, the more its arrogant ruling class believe themselves worthy of royal treatment… and the more justified they feel about lying to the public for their own good. That is why the climate change elite gathered in Copenhagen this week is outraged that anyone would dare question their right to save a foolish world from itself, by lying through its teeth in a bid to seize power.
Constitutionally mandated term limits, anyone? Anyone?
It may be that newbie congressmen and senators will be at the mercy of long-time lobbyists and bureaucrats. May be. It's just a thought in line with the idea of the law of unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteHere's a better thought. In Henry Adams' novel, Democracy. Senator Ratcliffe is asked, "what is to become of us if corruption is allowed to go unchecked."
* "My reply," said Ratcliffe, "is that no representative government can long be much better or worse than the society it represents. Purify society and you purify the government. But try to purify the government artificially and you only aggravate the failure."
Father,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe and hold sacrosanct the twin principles of:
(1) The individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
and
(2) The non-initiation of force?
Those are the twin pillars from which all true Libertarian thought proceeds. Libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy or perspective that makes equal and commensurate individual freedom and individual responsibility.
But my experience is that most people want unlimited license to do whatever they want with no responsibility for the consequences.
And many believers in the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price within the Church would oppose Libertarianism simply because it does make people responsible to reap what they have sown. People don't like assuming accountability for their inability or downright refusal to properly plan ahead. Indeed, Libertarianism is completely opposed to the idea that everyone (regardless of his work status) deserves something to eat:
"In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat." 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, NAB.
You are responsible for your life and what you do with it, and I am responsible for mine and what I do with it. I am NOT responsible for you when you screw up, NOR are you responsible for me when I screw up.
Ioannes, I can say yes to both...with qualifications. I'm a philosopher-in-training. Making distinctions is what we do!
ReplyDeleteCatholic social teaching is clear on the fact that we exist within a community and as members of a community we have certain indispensable responsibilities to and for the whole. Radical individualism is not an option for Catholics. But neither is state-controlled collectivism.
If "non-initiation of force" is consistent with the Church's teaching on the possibilities of just wars, then I can say yes to that.
The other problem for Catholics with libertarian leanings is abortion. If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to the unborn, then I'm happy with that as well.
More than anything else I am 100% in favor of the smallest possible gov't that we need to do a few very basic things (national defense, etc.).
I stick with Palin's phrase "Commonsense Conservative" meself.
ReplyDeleteI have had the same thought about term limits again and again recently... The primary reason for politicians sucking up to big corporations is for money when the elections come around - I had a government professor once say "Candidates don't lose elections, they run out of money and fail to get their signs, ads and people out the door."
ReplyDeleteMy vote would be to lengthen the terms and impose one-term limits like no one's business: 3-4 years for the House, 6 years for the President, and 8-10 years for Senators.
Just my two cents...
* "My reply," said Ratcliffe, "is that no representative government can long be much better or worse than the society it represents. Purify society and you purify the government. But try to purify the government artificially and you only aggravate the failure."
ReplyDeleteThis is spot on. Our society is devolving. People are encouraged, at least sexually, to act as an animal in heat. That it is only feeling good that matters. I'm sure many here could come up with other examples in many areas. Take honesty. It's a hard road to travel, so many take the easy way. After all, it's all about them, and what they can get.
Well I am against Term Limits. That would be a disaster in my mind in many ways.
ReplyDeleteThat being said the problem perhaps is people have let their cynical viewpoints and cliches actually be a political viewpoint. Well to each his own I guess.
But I think we can see that elections matter and that perhaps that not all politicos are the same. They have ideas and beliefs they actually believe in. A lot ofConservatives said hey they are all the same so what is the difference between McCain and Obama. Well I guess we are seeing the difference now
Elections matter. Republicans lost. People that wanted to teach the GOP a lesson by losing o at the end of the day are going to have judge if their self proclaimed "lesson" was worth it. Oh we showed politico x did we not and all we had to pay for it was a health Care plan that will bankrupt the country. But we showed him or her. Wow what a victory.
Is the problem the politicos or us? That is the problem done of us want to face. We point a finger but forget 4 are pointing back to us.
"My vote would be to lengthen the terms and impose one-term limits like no one's business: 3-4 years for the House, 6 years for the President, and 8-10 years for Senators"
ReplyDeleteMatthew we have now seen term linits imposed in several Stae Houses. Has it produced great good Government? In Louisiana we are starting to see the first signs and I must say I see no change.
I am against term limnits for many reason. First and formost because I am from a rural district and if not for senior status rural districts would again be at the mercy of more urban districts.
But also this is it. It does take a while for a Repreentative to get a grasp of things when they get to the House or the Senate. In fact it might take them years to get a full graps on the diverse needs of their district. I am not sure how term limits that in effect would surrender more power and control to faceless experts and Government lifetime workers I have no control over is a good thing
I guess if you want to kick out your Rep after two terms great. But if people in my district like our Rep and want too keep reeelcting him I wonder how it is any of your affair