Living in the small spaces around the State | RedState - 1 views
-
That’s why socialists despise federalism.
-
Gary Edwards on 12 Jul 13Socialist despise federalism? I disagree. Socialist love big big and bigger government. To the socialist, "the needs of society trump the rights and liberty of the individual". That's why the HATE the Constitution! The founding documents mark the first time in mankind's recorded history that God given inalienable individual rights and freedoms are the central force and moral imperative driving the institution of government. To the founders, government only exists to protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual. The need for an "ordered society" is exactly to protect individual liberty! The socialist rejects this moral imperative and the ordered society created by the founding documents. They reject the Constitution because it protects and champions individual liberty.
-
Gary Edwards on 12 Jul 13Perhaps there is a difference between what the founding fathers meant by Federalism, and what a Socialist means. The founders thought of Federalism as a system of government where governance is balanced and divided three ways: federal government, State government, and individual citizens. The powers and authorities of both federal and State governments were carefully enumerated and limited to only those emumerations. Incredibly, the States voted to ratify the Constitution, thereby creating the Federal government. Including full recognition of the Supremacy Clause and, the 9th and 10th Amendments. And then, they embedded the Constitution in their own State Constitutions. I know of no socialist who accepts the concept of individual liberty trumping or even being equal to either State or Federal government authority. The "Federalism" they accept does not include individual rights and authorities. They also see State government as a subset of Federal government - and not the independent, sovereign governments consenting to the exact, enumerated authorities and powers granted the Federal government through the Constitution. A grant that came from the people, and the States themselves.
-
-
Only centralized, inescapable power will do. Otherwise, citizens can escape from oppressive socialist schemes by moving to a different community, which is relatively easy to do in 21st-century America.
-
The Founders were very big on the importance of free people granting, and by extension withdrawing, consent from government.
- ...14 more annotations...
-
Moving away is the simplest method of withdrawing consent. The ability to walk away from any deal, public or private, is the essential fuel of competition. That’s why we are always on guard against monopolistic business practices. Who cares whether a captive audience applauds or not?
-
But the Left insists on monopoly in the case of government power. Elections are to be followed by obedience. And this sphere of inescapable power grows relentlessly.
-
The one thing we are not allowed to vote on, ever, is reducing the size of government, and therefore increasing the sphere of liberty.
-
To the Left, that kind of talk is seditious. Elections are about nudging the government into applying one trillion-dollar solution or other to society’s problems, but there must be a trillion-dollar solution. Those who would prefer the government to do nothing are considered cruel or selfish… but the government “doing nothing” is the very definition of liberty.
-
So everything is now a matter of government interest, which means politics is all-consuming. It’s amusing to listen to someone complain that they don’t like politics – a very common sentiment – while also declaring themselves comfortable with gigantic maternal government.
-
If you want the State to control, provide, tax, and limit everything, you had bloody well better learn to love politics. They will be everywhere; they must be.
-
And because one person’s votes and opinions matter very little against the power of a mighty central government that controls the lives of hundreds of millions of people, you had better be prepared to get organized. Your interests will only be protected if you belong to a large, aggressive political collective that can command the attention of politicians.
-
You must be aggressive in asserting those interests against others. The State-run economy is a zero-sum game, a very limited pie, sliced with extremely sharp knives. You either take, or you give.
-
The last energy of federalism will be drained away when the basket-case blue states begin imploding, and everyone else is taxed to bail them out. It won’t matter that your state government was managed responsibly, or that your governor provided a growth-oriented business-friendly environment. Your reward for that will be a bigger share of the bailout for the left-wing lunatics in Illinois and California.
-
Big Government is fundamentally incompatible with social harmony, although its acolytes are always trying to argue the reverse.
-
If you seek a more genteel society with less political strife, you want states to compete with each other for citizens.
-
You want a federal government that will make America a magnet for investment, instead of building regulatory fences to keep it from fleeing overseas. You want a system that spends less time telling people what they’re allowed to work for, and obliged to settle for.
-
You want people to cooperate voluntarily, rather than using force to impose their demands on each other. Life in such a society is not always placid, but at least the discord tends to be more productive.
-
Government is force. Big government means more force. Release cannot be tolerated, or else force dissipates. Look at the current idiocy of the Washington, D.C. city council’s efforts to arrange a special $12.50 “living wage” that will only apply to Wal-Mart, which wanted to build a few stores in poverty-stricken, high-unemployment communities. Wal-Mart said no thanks, and escaped. The living wage crowd is very angry about this. They won’t be happy until escape is impossible.