We’re All Addicts Now
As I’m preparing to shutdown my original site, I’ve been reading through some of the writings I published there from April of 2008 through December 2009. While some are rather embarrassing because of the style [or lack, thereof] or due to my poor communications skills at the time, several are worthy, I think, of re-airing here. Here’s two combined into one, as they both touched on the same subject…
The Founding Fathers went out of their way not to give this country a democracy because they realized the dangers of direct rule by the people. They set us up with a constitutional republic with the sovereign people being given indirect representation in the House and the state governments being given representation in the Senate. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
§ 702 The reasoning, by which this mode of appointment was supported, does not appear at large in any contemporary debates. But it may be gathered from the imperfect lights left us, that the main grounds were, that it would immediately connect the state governments with the national government, and thus harmonize the whole into one universal system; that it would introduce a powerful check upon rash legislation, in a manner not unlike that created by the different organizations of the house of commons, and the house of lords in Great Britain; and that it would increase public confidence by securing the national government from undue encroachments on the powers of the states. The Federalist notices the subject in the following brief and summary manner, which at once establishes the general consent to the arrangement, and the few objections, to which it was supposed to be obnoxious. “It is unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the state legislatures. Among the various modes, which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favouring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” This is very subdued praise; and indicates more doubts, than experience has, as yet, justified.
The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the sovereign states and act as a check against the actions of the national government. The 17th Amendment made Senators glorified House Representatives members responsive to the whims of the masses. In the time since it was passed, the power of the states to control their own destinies has been slowly eroded and more power has accrued to the Federal government. The dependency of the states on Federal largess has grown so much that their independence has been all but lost and we are seeing a perfect example of that these day’s in the call by a number of Governors for their own bailouts. The states have willingly given up their checks on the Federal power and they cheer-on any growth of it if they are guaranteed a piece of the expanding pie [the states also use Federal tactics when dealing with their local communities and, thus, local sovereignty is fading away as well]. They are true addicts, left without the will to resist. Thus, state sovereignty, which is an essential check on the power of the three Federal branches, finds itself in a very weakened state today.
This is one part of a growing dependency of all sectors of America on the national government.
The word ‘dependency’ fits. The Little Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as ‘controlled by another’. Continuing with the definition: ‘unable to do without something; maintained at another’s cost’.
The best way to make someone dependent on you is to get them addicted to something you have a monopoly on. Slowly our Federal officials have been seeking to make individual citizens dependent upon the Federal Government, so that it can keep growing as it wills to and, therefore, increasing the strength of its power. This is the natural result of having a government — it’s in it’s DNA, as it were, to seek to accumulate power.
Not having a government, however, leads to anarchy. So we must have government to prevent chaos and disorder-a place where no rights exist. Having a government is the lesser of two negative choices. The Founding Fathers realized this. When they wrote our Constitution, they separated powers and provided checks and balances between the powers. With the march of time, however, the natural tendencies of any government exert themselves and the controls on said tendencies begin to fade away.
We are confronted with an acceleration of this trend today.
We individuals will find ourselves in the exact same position if we do not demand a restoration of our rights. Already we have a middling addiction. We must resist becoming more addicted to the government.
This is one element of The Present Crisis.
Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere [To accept a favour is to sell freedom].
[Originally published in slightly different formats on 14 November and 17 December 2008; edited to eliminate redundancy and for clarity]
Good post. Yes Uncle Sugar is our crack daddy. He looked good at first, shiny new care, flashing cash…
Now we’re barely chugging along on three cylinders and belching smoke, and he’s holding up liquor stores and robbing honest people to support our habit.
It was always bound to end badly, wasn’t it?
One tactical realization that follows from this excellent rant is: we will need to recruit a number of “ungrateful addicts” to the cause of liberty – such as the long term UI recipient who felt guilt at not working but saw no other way to carry on.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
At the risk of interjecting a little hope, perhaps “The Fullness of Time” could apply to our current troubles, here is an excerpt from a column By Ray Hodge in our very local paper. I thought it was worth a read (twice).
There was nothing premature or haphazard about God clothing himself in human flesh. No power in all the earth could have caused a premature coming of the Messiah or the incarnation event. It took place, as described in Galatians 4:4, “But when the time had fully come.” The “fullness of time” can mean “when the time was ‘pregnant.’” For believers, Christmas relates to the incarnation, the time when God came in human flesh to visit and minister to his people. For them, that is what Christmas is all about, the birth of Jesus, or the coming of “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”
Read the whole thing
http://www.garnerclayton.com/2010/12/22/5398/the-fullness-of-time.html
Silver: Spot-on. Just like in Badlands.
Liberty: Methinks you’re quite right – as with every successful movement, there will be many times we will have to hold our noses with one hand while the other reaches out.
Adobe: Thank you for the link, which I recommend to everyone. [SIDENOTE: Perhaps we should have a Come To Jesus Meeting with Julius Obamacus Nero Caesar?]
I’m wondering if the fullness of time has arrived for our National Reawakening. The Bolsheviks have clearly missed their “moment in history”, I wonder if groups like the Guardians of Liberty, the 9/12ers and the various Tea Parties are coalescing now. Is it too early or has conservatism’s moment arrived?
http://www.guardiansofliberty.org/
Welcome back Bob, here’s hoping you had a good Christmas and hoping all of us have an energetic and productive New Year.