More Government Equals Less Freedom

big-government2by Tim Jones6/4/15
Republicans Need to do a Better Job at Communicating this to the Pubic by Connecting the Dots.  •  It has become extremely easy to pinpoint the flaws in Democrat policy and objectives as stated in the rhetoric of their candidates and congressmen, at least for those of outside of government. For those inside government, or who want to get there, always profess they will improve lives of Americans, especially those of lesser financial status. But when you connect the dots to the rhetoric and the reality, it always comes back to one thing and one thing only: more government. And more government by definition means more bureaucracy (which is the way they carry out their policies once they become law) which in turns means more rules and regulations.

By definition more rules and regulations means more interference in the lives of Americans by force of the law through means of penalties of one kind or another when individuals don’t abide by the laws they’ve enacted. This is why it is very logical to say that for the Democrats — beginning with Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson and now to Obama — the trajectory of the country has been one towards more government interference while having the inverse effect of creating less freedom. This cannot be disputed.

Bureaucracy has now basically become an unaccountable and unelected fourth branch of government that carries out the majority of rules and regulations that Americans have to abide by. This is what is known as soft tyranny and the way we’re going is leading to absolute authoritarianism. What may be the best example is the recent EPA ruling to regulate literally every body of water in the country that includes small ponds, streams, or even large puddles on private poverty. The following is from a recent story in the Washington Times: Obama admin asserts dominion over creeks, streams, wetlands, ditches — even big puddles

“President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, creeks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority. The Environmental Protection Agency along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority….EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond, and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs”

For Republicans that truly believe in smaller government and the need to downsize it, it’s time they start connecting the dots for the American people and show how, for all of the “compassionate” rhetoric of the Democrats, it’s all just smoke and mirrors that always leads to one thing: less freedom and keeping the country on the incrementalist path of governmental control over everyone, no matter what your station is in life. It’s high time Republicans, especially the next nominee for president, start educating and communicating this to the American public.

For far too long Republicans have accepted the Democratic mantra that government can and will make your life better . That’s just become kind of a default standard for politicking and legislating as well as a kind of conventional wisdom put forth by both parties ever since Roosevelt unilaterally and in many ways unconstitutionally granted more powers to the federal government than was intended by the Founding Fathers and the limited enumerated powers they spelled out in the Constitution.

It was Richard Nixon who in an ironic twist of history created the EPA and George W. Bush who significantly expanded the massive federal Medicare healthcare entitlement program for those 65 years old and over with its unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program. When it comes to rhetoric and to legislating, successful Republicans should consider the Buddhist mantra: “less is more” and start educating and articulating clearly to the public why that is in their best interest when it comes to federal policy. • (1061 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to More Government Equals Less Freedom

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Good article, Tim. Thanks for submitting it.

    A few thoughts:

    + “Freedom” as defined by those who like Big Government typically is defined as “freedom from responsibility,” though they don’t use those exact words. But it all equates to “free stuff” and “freedom to sleep around” (thus abortion is a secular Sacrament), freedom to be a victim and coerce others economically for it (the root of Cultural Marxism), freedom to blame other people for one’s own behavior, etc. We need to recognize that the Left (as with so many other words) has co-opted this one.

    + Dennis Prager has a saying (it’s on a bumper sticker on my car), “The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.” Again, we’re going to run into a core disagreement on this that relates to the first point. For some, big government is seen as a good thing. I remember bits and pieces of this culture as they enter my brain and stick there like a fly on fly paper. One thing that entered my brain a while back was a university-educated scientist who told me “I don’t believe in limited government.” The depth of the ignorance contained in that statement is awe-inspiring, for to not believe in limited government is to believe in unlimited government. More precisely, it shows a naive trust in government.

    + “Less is more” is also an artistic truism. I hadn’t known that Buddhists ever used it.

    + I’m going to piss into the next small puddle I see…sort of a modern version of the Boston Tea Party.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Based on encounters I had at college, I think the leftist view at that time was (as one English TA put it), “Freedom is the presence of opportunity rather than the absence of restraint.” Thus, someone who is poor is unfree because he can’t get all the toys that a rich person can. Of course, that’s basically a socialist concept; your version represents the libertinist concept.

      Reagan, you’ll recall, pointed out that a government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take everything from you. And note that bureaucracy, properly speaking, means “rule by bureaus”.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        “Freedom is the presence of opportunity rather than the absence of restraint.” Thus, someone who is poor is unfree because he can’t get all the toys that a rich person can. Of course, that’s basically a socialist concept; your version represents the libertinist concept

        I think that’s it, Timothy. The irony (although we’re used to that when talking about the Left) is that those who so whole-heartedly follow Darwinism (survival of the fittest) seem to be the first who want to try to equalize everything. “The poor” thus must be made unpoor, just because.

        And that makes some sense. If one doesn’t believe that every person is a precious thing, a gift of God, a being with a soul, then it is difficult to see any intrinsic value in those who have apparently lesser talents or abilities (although that doesn’t save them from the Leftist/Progressive craze for eugenics and euthanasia…another contradiction seemingly). It’s difficult to see the value people except through an economic lens if you are on the Left.

        So if someone is “poor,” that is one’s focus, the economic circumstance (not moral circumstance) to be remedied. And because the Left is all about hacking away at all the imperfect things that they have not built — anything that has come before their specially anointed minds — it makes perfect sense to see “the poor” as a consequence of external influences (never internal influences, such as individual merit, ability, or moral disposition). This also is the rationale for their power.

        There are many aspects to this “equalizing,” remembering always (as you always do) the two-tier reality. Those at the top despise Western culture, tend to hate men (at least white men, with white Christian straight men being at the bottom of the totem pole), and wish to “fundamentally transform” anything that wasn’t built by them (with the transformer being government, with them in charge, of course). They are driven mostly by grievance and power as well as Utopian yearnings that probably only Freud could have understood. They seem to have a need to live as children forever and to forever use mommy and daddy as whipping posts for their own failings.

        Those as the bottom tier (the useful idiots, the low-information voters, the dupes, the naive and often narcissistic “do-gooders”) tend to think that “equalizing” things is good, if only because we’ve all become so emasculated that we can parse things in no other way. The thought of someone having less invokes an emotional reaction — feelings. And as Dennis Prager notes about Leftist society, they have replaced standards with feelings.

        And it’s not wrong to have feelings and sympathies. But what this has become is narcissism where the only thing that matters are one’s feelings, not the outer reality. What most of “the poor” need (at least those in the West) is not sympathy but the inculcation of good values…and it would help to have good schools free from the choking vines of teacher’s unions and Democrat politics. But such notions (that require honest and concerted thought) are overcome by the need to always be felt good about. The idea of tough love doesn’t exist in this emasculated vocabulary (for both men and women).

        Freedom as a conservative understands the term is the freedom to chart one’s own course, to rise or fall, achieve or fail, by the sweat of one’s own brow. You own the accomplishments and you own the failures. And this kind of freedom works well only in a moral culture (thus libertarianism is out) and a lawful culture (thus Cultural Marxism is out).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Oh, and “freedom from judgment” (inside certain bounds) is absolutely central to the Leftist/Progressive/Freudian/LibChristian world view. Instead of upholding needed standards of conduct, the sine qua non of the Left is to show how supposedly damn nice one is by being “accepting,” “tolerant,” and “non-judgmental.” Again, you see the childhood-forever influence embedded deep in the Left. Without making wise judgments about the good, we are both emotionally and intellectually castrated.

    • Pst4usa says:

      Brad, “accepting,” “tolerant,” and “non-judgmental.” are only good things to the leftist, if they are not applied to the evil old white christian straight male. For almost any other, as Tony would say, “there great”.

  3. Tim Jones says:

    hahaha … love your comment Brad about pissing into a puddle as an act of defiance … and regarding ‘less is more’, I’m not sure it’s an actual Buddhist mantra … I was taking a little liberty with the tenet of minimalism of Buddhist philosophy … it is becoming clearer and clearer by the day liberalism has become so divorced from reality that nearly everything they espouse is contradicted by facts (climate warming, obamacare, immigration, etc.) … and every time i hear obama or hillary speak the only thing that ever comes to mind is ‘what a LIAR”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Starting in 1992, the Demagogues have made it a practice to choose pathological liars as their nominees. Obviously, they realize that truth is always their enemy. And as the hymn “Once in Every Nation” observes, the struggle between truth and falsehood is also the struggle between good and evil.

  4. Pst4usa says:

    Very good post, the title says it all Mr. Jones. “Republicans Need to do a Better Job at Communicating this to the Pubic by Connecting the Dots. ” far too few Republicans understand the concept these days to communicate it at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *