stoat - n - The ermine, especially when in its brown color phase.
Inspired by William Lind: "In 1914, America was a republic with a small federal government, a self-reliant citizenry, growing industry, an expanding middle class, an uplifting culture and exemplary morals. By 1990 and the end of that long war, we had become a tawdry and increasingly resented world empire with a vast, endlessly intrusive federal government, a population of willingly manipulated consumers, shrinking industry, a vanishing middle class, a debauched culture and morals that would shame a self-respecting stoat. "
2 comments:
I have often pronounced similar commentary. The great thing about our country's beginnings was the fact that the government was so small and unintrusive with very specific goals and objects and narrowly defined responsibilities. People didn't want more government, that is probably, to some degree anyway, one of the things they didn't like about the Old World. Besides, they had their farms to worry about, which was probably more important to them than having a big government.
One thing you notice in history is how affluence affects human nature. The richer people were less self-reliant and tended to have the opinion they could do anything (above the law, debauchery, etc) they darn well pleased. The affluent weren't always known as the moral light posts of their world.
And here we are as a country. All of us richer than some loin-cloth wearing blowgun shooting aboriginee in some rain forest and largely richer than most of what would be our peers in other civilized countries. Yet, when it's time to elect a President, we argue over whether the he should support abortion, how he is going to fund health care, medicare, social security, gay rights, etc. In this regard, Senator Kerry (whom I loathe generally) actually made an astute comment. He said something to the effect of "What I believe personally shapes me but should not be inflicted on the government. Therefore whether I support abortion or not is not relevant to how I believe the government should legislate that subject". I think he was mostly correct. The government's job (especially the federal government) doesn't include legislating any of those things.
In the end I'd love to see the government largely tossed out and reformed closer to the description in the constitution. A government of the people for the people by the people is a good thing, and it should focus on a common defense and interstate traffic. It should lead by example and delegate responsibility to the states. It should be strong enough to maintain a sane union, and allow enough lee-way for the states to dictate their own course. It should not over-tax the constituents, it should not provide for social problems (leave those issues to the states or cities). It should not decide gay people have more or fewer rights than heterosexual people. It should not legislate over marriage or abortion. It should raise taxes to provide for the funding of a strong military and pave highways for commerce. Elected officials should not be payed by the federal government, but their needs such as housing, food and medical costs should be free (much like they are in the military). States should provide for their elected officials both locally and at the federal level...
I could go on, but I'm not convinced I really have the answers. I just know something has to change.
Well said, so much so that you've saved me some typing. I'll add just one thing: constitutionally, such vexed questions as abortion should be left to the states. (I frankly consider legalized abortion, acceptance of homosexuality as just another life-style choice, and a high illegitimacy rate as symptoms of a decadent culture, but these are not issues to be handled by a nearly-omnipotent central government.
Post a Comment