The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Posts Tagged ‘limited government

The Positives of Conservatism – Limited Government

leave a comment »

So I’ve decided to try and start a series of posts on the positives of Conservatism. To elaborate, we spend a LOT of time trashing the left. And while it’s good sport for us, it hardly does anything to win the hearts and minds of those who vacillate between left and right. So, it’s my opinion that we, as Conservatives, need to actually start uniting behind a real message of hope – one that works because it’s not contrary to the left, but rather, promotes the things that are great about America. If we can do that, we stand to begin winning hearts and minds to the RIGHT path.

Part of this series will be questions to ask people. Liberals will likely retort with race-bating, hate-bating, or some other emotionally charged response about how Bush screwed this or that up, or how the Tea Party is wrecking America. But these questions are designed to be individualized – which means you have to start having conversations with individual people.

In other words, how government is supposed to be.

So here is something to “pass through the grass”.

On Limited Government

When I stand around a watercooler, I never hear anyone who sings the praises of the government. Mostly, the conversation takes a downward turn about how stupid everyone in the belt-way is, or how inept the government is, or how they simply hate them. Without exception, I NEVER hear, “oh, I love the government”, or “I simply love Congress”.

The only part of the government, really, that gets any real respect and adoration is our Military. And that’s because they justly earn it. Thanks for your service, my Brothers and Sisters in Arms.

Today, approval of Congress has never been lower, something like 85% disapproval, less than 10% approval according to Real Clear Politics. It’s never been as bad as it is now. Now chalk it up to things like the shutdown, or the O’care rollout, or their general acts that are morally questionable when spending money and earmarking – but either way, less than one person in ten has a positive view of Congress.

Logic dictates one of either two courses of

  • They are unwilling to improve.
  • They are unable to improve.

To that end, either way, that doesn’t sit will with me when we consider that we’re to trust government with our money, our freedoms, or even our health care.

Ask: If everyone in government is so stupid and incapable, then why do we want to continuously trust them with things that could effectively mean life or death?

Government only was commissioned for specific things. Originally and specifically, it was commissioned for:

  1. print money – Dept of Treasury;
  2. negotiate treaties and communicate with other nations – Dept of State;
  3. raise and maintain a military – Dept of War (now Defense); and
  4. manage commerce issues between the several States – Dept of Commerce.

The way I see it, this is what it should be. But now, government has become so bloated and unworkable, it’s beyond repair. We as individuals need to evaluate just how involved government is in our lives. We saw a glimpse of this during the shutdown. Frankly, it should be a very disturbing thing to all Americans as to how dependent we have become on government.

Ask: Are you saying then that you NEED the government, because you’re incapable of taking care of yourself, or you want the government to pony up because it continuously takes from you. In either case, why is the government something that is desirable?

Ask: Wouldn’t you feel better if you were to realize the American Dream on your own, rather than holding to a handout?

Ask: Wouldn’t it not be better to be unaffected by what happens in Washington on a personal level, than to have people in Washington make decisions without considering how it affects you?

In the end, the more that government is involved in our lives, the less liberty and freedom we enjoy. We can’t allow the bureaucrats to sacrifice our liberty for the entitlement of others. Each person is to control their own destiny – without an overreaching government messing it up.

So, the first benefit of conservatism is that we believe that with government out of the way most of the time, people are more free to control their own destinies. Government has its purposes, but it’s better to have those purposes limited and specific, not over-reaching and broad.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

October 22, 2013 at 11:29 am

Government Red Tape Is Not an Effective Firefighting Tool

leave a comment »

So here’s another reason why the Federal Government should be reduced in size.

Turns out, there is a wildfire burning in Northwest Nevada.  And on station was a HH-1H Huey helicopter with 323 gallons of water in its tank, ready to drop to assist firefighters in curtailing the blaze.  However, because the pilot was unclear as to whether the fire was on property owned by the Bureau of Land Management, or the US Forest Service, the pilot didn’t do the drop, because it would have been legal for BLM, but not for the USFS.

As we go into the article, the writer goes into some of the technical issues that prevented the chopper from doing the drop.

Red tape BS in other words.

What surprises me is that whether its BLM or USFS, it’s federal land, so what does it matter?  But for these organizations, which have their own rules about how and when things can be done, it makes all the difference.

Wildfires don’t really care where and what they burn.  They will torch a grove of trees of an entire neighborhood -it makes no difference to a wildfire.  But it does matter to bureaucrats.

This is a reason why limited government is better.  More government means more bureaucrats, more ivory towers and more turf wars for supremacy.  Reducing government means taking agencies that do very similar things and condensing them into one organization, which could run leaner.

If we go back and look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we see, again, the government basically stumbling over itself in what was one of the worst natural disasters in the nation, coupled with one of the worst governmental debacles.

What we got to do is stop thinking like government can save us from ourselves and do these things at the community level.  The Colorado Springs fire in Waldo Canyon a few weeks ago showed that cooperative efforts at the local level are the best way to handle disasters.

And let the people in Washington do what they do best…which is basically nothing.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

July 16, 2012 at 8:37 am

People and Government – A Teachable Lesson in Civics

with 2 comments

So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it. This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.

Did you ever see this movie?  The context is that a masked character wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, depicted here, launches a single assault on a dictatorial government in Britain, one created as the result of people giving silent consent to a charismatic figure who made lofty promises of peace and security, will removing from it the ideals of freedom.  The story was edgy and gutsy.  The characters were believable and the ending pretty poetic.  I could have done without the one girl-girl kissing scene, however. 

Anyway, I was trolling through the net this morning and, after looking at quotes, I saw one that reminds me of the perspective of what government should be, “People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.” I, then, happened on this quote by Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times:

There are ideas in this film. The most pointed is V’s belief: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." I am not sure V has it right; surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together. Fear in either direction must lead to violence. But V has a totalitarian state to overthrow, and only a year to do it in, and we watch as he improvises a revolution.

While I have great respect for Roger Ebert’s take on movies, having watched him back on WGN-9 Chicago (before they went cable), I find his position on this point to be part of what is wrong with how America relates to its government.  Yes I know this movie has been out there for a while and what Ebert said has a great deal of time between it and now, but it’s still a perfect teaching moment.

Ebert first says, “surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together”; he has two things wrong in this statement.  First, the people are not the possessive of the government; it is the other way around.  People possess THEIR government.  The minute we start thinking that the people are owned, controlled, or managed by their government, we create a state that is very different than the one the Founders envisioned.  Today’s Progressive moment likes to think, in their sheer arrogance, that people are the ward of the government.  This is an absolute distinction from this writer’s point of view.  Second, it is naiveté to think that people and government exist happily together.  Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, “Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst, is an intolerable one”.  Either way, it is not cynicism to consider that government itself is evil.  The minute we begin to think in this idyllic fantasy that people and government live in some sort of ‘kum-bay-ah’ harmony, we are turning ripe for the conquering and subjugating.

God’s original intent was for people to govern themselves and the primary unit for humanity’s management was the family, not some elected, appointed, or nobility-born external body, designed to regulate the affairs of people.  The Founders understood this clearly because they believed in the utmost respect for individuals and their families.  Progressives today simply push for more government because individualized self-governance means that people won’t always comply with Progressive dogma.  So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it.

This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.

Ebert then goes on to make the statement, “Fear in either direction must lead to violence”.  This is not necessarily true, and it’s not true generally.  Fear doesn’t always produce violence, but rather, as the Bible correctly states, fear, specifically of the Lord, produces wisdom.  Fear of disciplinary action keeps students in school from becoming delinquent twits.  Fear of legal punishment keeps people from breaking the law (why else does a person slow down in an area where they know the police are monitoring for speeders?).  Fear from constituents keeps the government from getting so out of hand that its citizens don’t begin expressing anger at the ballot box.  Fear doesn’t always produce violence; I’m not saying it doesn’t, just not always.

Government exists at the pleasure of God and the people (even when God and the people disagree) and has risen and fallen when either has mandated for a change.  This is the reason why the best forms of government are those that are “of the People, by the People, and for the People”.  Governments that are not of/by/for the People have great reason to fear, because if the people, in unified consent, decide to remove their government, they’re toast.

Freedom forever, my friends.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

December 16, 2009 at 12:53 pm

An Enormous Credit Card Bill

leave a comment »

Today, a story came out of the Dallas-Fort Worth area about a poor schlub who ended up seeing a $23 quadrillion charge on his credit card bill.  Jon Seale was surprised to say the least when his statement rolled in with a mega-charge after dinner at Wolfgang Puck’s.  National Broadcasting Corporation (stress National), produced this article that would probably end up being filed under the Oddly Enough category.

$23 quadrillion is 2000 time that of the current National Debt (despite Obama’s best  efforts to put the next twelve generations of Americans into poverty). $23 quadrillion is far more money than there is on Earth. In fact, the Gross World Product (basically the planetary GDP) in 2007 was estimated at $54 trillion.  Now if you added up all the money in the US coffers (M1, M2, and M3), you’d get around $6 trillion.  These numbers are but a drop in the bucket to Mr. Seale’s $23 quadrillion bill.

Now this is all in jest, obviously. Mr. Seale won’t be having to pay off the crazy charge nor even the $20 overdraft fee, which is a good thing.  And he’ll have something to laugh about next time he buys anything from Wolfgang Puck.

But there is a bigger lesson to learn here – who is actually going to pay for nationalized health care, cap and trade tax, the stimuli bills that get pumped out of the government coffers, and every other big government program that the liberals in Congress have promoted in the last few months?  Well, we are of course!

And just like Mr. Seale’s initial reaction of “what the ______” (fill in your own explicative) when he saw his statement, we’re going to start seeing it in everything we do.  We’ll see gas prices go up when the cap and tax bill goes in, a bill that is designed to attack energy production in the US and will line the coffers of companies like Goldman Sachs and others who will profit.  We’ll see the costs of big government in our food, clothing, and basic sustenance when the millionaire business owners that will get the 5.4% tax hike when nationalized health care is pushed into our lives like a bad prescription.  And while we’re out enjoying the fruits of the Stimulus Bills that keep rolling out, well someone has to pay for that.  And I don’t see the suits in Washington turning their pockets out to pay for it, but rather, are requiring all of us to do it.

But some basic questions here:

Who really wants cap and trade?  The greens who believe that we’re destroying the earth every time we breathe (a message they’ve been hammering on the drums for over 100 years, back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution).  Well, countries that are interested in making money and advancing into the First World have already shrugged off Cap and Trade, such as India, China, and Mexico (which will basically render our efforts towards reducing emissions useless and give these countries an economic advantage).  And all of this has been set in motion to combat a problem that has never truly been scientifically vetted amongst the critics or the climate community. 

Who really wants nationalized health care?  Do we really want to see a wait for nine hours to get seen for a potentially broken arm?  What about a two week wait immediately after a “heart problem” which could end up being fatal?  What about having to wait *years* before being able to see a specialist, waiting for some government bureaucrat to make a decision about whether it’s viable and in the public’s interest to treat you.

Who really wants these stimulus bills?  Who wants to watch us sacrifice the futures of our kids to spend on programs that the liberals want to fund?  Who wants to see $1T spending bills that promise to lower unemployment if they are passed, but do nothing but commit money to government programs that create nothing but dependency on the government?

The government is spending money it doesn’t have, running up the country’s credit card, and hoping that by dumping exorbitant amounts of cash on the problems of the world that they will go away.  Unfortunately, the only thing big government does is get in the way of those things that actually would solve the world’s problems.

The sad thing about all of this is that Mr. Seale may end up seeing another bill come in with some nice high charges on it, but this time, they will be real.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

July 15, 2009 at 3:17 pm

%d bloggers like this: