Intemperate attitude towards authoritarianism

Yet another entry in the pieces that I should probably tag with some sort of nice tag to point out which pieces are spurred on by my commentary elsewhere... but I am a lazy good for nothing bum, so you are on your own. I might put in a nice tag with this one and, in my copious spare time while trying to stay awake, see if I can back populate it.

Such is life.

Now, to the matter at hand.

Yes, intemperance doth rule the day and I do get that way. This was by the ever insightful Mr. Z posting on the rules used by the authoritarian to totalitarian Left/Progressive realm, but applies to the same kind of folks on the Right, too. Actually, when it comes to folks espousing for authoritarian/totalitarian outlooks, I don't see a Left or Right or much in the way of gray. I know lots of gray, and there isn't any between them, the pro- and anti-istas. Doesn't matter if it is Alinsky, Goebbels, Stalin, Chomsky, Chopra, NARAL, or Pol Pot: there may be different sizes to the kettles, but they are all black. And while those in the R party may tout many a wonderful thing, may I point out that the 'bi-partisan' nature of the awful things that have come from government indicates that this is not a 'two sided' affair, but one side using two venues to grab more power for government? Really, even the great communicator Reagan lost it, and so did his party... which brings me to my commentary, here presented in response to the long listing of ways and means those seeking power use communication skills to 'get their message across', but isn't that, really. As always it is as-is, no changes save for formatting.

Really I need an in-line spell checker, but I prefer some browser for reading, some for posting and none fits all criteria... so picking up on the Reagan theme at the end of the article...

And for those who have forgotten, RWR did not follow up on promises of smaller government, less intrusive government, more manageable government... and other elected Republicans paid him little heed on those things.

The simple way to combat lies, misdirection, and all the rest of it is with the simple formula:

-Do as you Say.
-Say what you Mean.
-Mean what you Do.

That comes under the heading of HONOR.

There is no party that directly honors the Nation, recognizes that the government is *not* the Nation, and who will do and mean the necessary things to curb the government from hurting the Nation. Far better that the people do that with each other than have it mandated by any 'nice' government. As it is both Parties back larger, more intrusive, less accountable and highly aristocratic government where the people are mere subjects.

I do not want 'nice' government to do all sorts of 'good things' for me. Government is a necessary evil, and handing it *those* powers makes it true and complete evil, taking away the capacity to do good from the common man and investing it in the highest, least representative, least accountable place in all of society. We entrust ourselves to do the good, government to administer law equally, and for that latter to be held in service to the former by just doing a few simple things.

If you are choosing between 'lesser of two evils' you have admitted you want evil government as neither choice will do the things necessary to keep it in check and make it work for the things it is supposed to do and hand back to the people those things it can't. You can't get government created financial crises if you keep government's nose out of the economy and just administer laws to keep companies accountable to shareholders. We stopped doing that with Teddy Roosevelt. It turns out that Hamilton was wrong: intrusive federal government is the problem, not a solution save to the question 'how fast will your liberty and freedom go downhill with intrusive government?'

Took about 90 years.

We now have an answer.

You can't get from limited government to large government without risk to your selves, your livelihood and your culture. And we have had exactly two parties exchanging 'power' while they have not been doing their jobs to administer government. Why don't 49% of Americans who can vote actually vote? With THAT track record, there is no encouragement, now, is there.

If Republicans want to gain trust they need to clearly state what their goals and objectives are.

They need to mean what they say and back it up, and when someone pulls an Alinsky *call them on it*.

Then the hard part is doing what you have said what you will do as you mean it and will now do it because you honor your word and will show it.


Alinsky and Goebbels can only work against cowards who are in search of power. Say that, tell how that works and say that their distractions are meant to raise ire and feelings, and not let good sense rule you.

That is FREEDOM.

Free people using reason to come to a considered judgment, and you don't need a single damned 'blue ribbon panel' to do that: people are smart if you tell it like it is and show how cowardly your opposition is in trying to change the subject, change the tune, rile your emotions and control you through them.

My stand is for limited federal government and entrusting the States and the people to make good laws for themselves. Those emotional 'hot button' issues of abortion, 'gay rights' and the rest are put on the screen to punch your buttons and distract YOU from the investment of power in the federal government to actually decide these things which belond to YOU and YOUR STATES to decide. That is why they are not 'hot button' for me: those bringing it up want to control me through my emotions and that gets only one response from me.

To Hell With Them All.

In case you hadn't noticed it, all the DEMS and RINOs and big-governmentites are cowards and will not talk about their actual reasons for doing these things. I do and will point them out - I always have and always will. Right or Left, Liberal or Conservative - trying to play with my emotions is dishonorable and demonstrates you have no compunctions and large ulterior motives.

I will not give you that power over me.

EVER.

And, yes, I will fight to retain it so I can lead my unwell life without government and 'activists' screwing it up far worse than I ever could. Better that than to be a slave to my emotions and then enslaved by government.

To Hell With That.

Conservatives need to swear off of the Reagan bottle and damned quick. He did speak well, fluently and had a great voice. His message is what resonated. America did, indeed, love the man, but if you invest HIM with that power to say what he means, and think that is what you need, then you are falling into the exact, same trap as the Obama Cult of Personality, save trying to do it with someone who never did live up to what he said. Going after the USSR and cutting taxes are his big plus signs. Not cutting the size or decreasing scope of government, letting the budget get larger, and running from Lebanon to give us worse terrorists over the following decades are negatives. Republicans never, ever, carried through with reducing size of government when cutting taxes. Not once in the post-war period. Ever.

Instead we have gotten weasel words about 'restricting growth' of programs, until the 'restricted growth' of Fannie and Freddie have put our financial markets into deep turmoil.

And no one has actually proposed REPEALING the legislation that MANDATED lenders give out loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

Hello? Republicans? Yoo-hoo!!!

Job #1 is getting RID of the SOURCE of the problem, and then seeing what to do about clean-up. As it is the sewer has backed up into your neighborhood, you are forming the bucket brigade and your compatriots, on the other side of the aisle are continuing to flush the toilets heartily with whatever they can jam into them. Then telling you how much we all need a bigger bucket brigade - because they refuse to stop flushing the crap down the toilet. And they have their friends lined up to help with the flushing.

Drunken sailors are smarter, spend their money more wisely and don't smell up the place as much as Congress does, spending wise. Maybe we should ask the Navy to get drunken sailors together to go through legislation? Hmmm... the idea has merit... and if they pass out, well it doesn't get through! Good, all easy to understand, and read stuff goes first... before the third round of drinks, at least. Anything after that isn't likely to get through.

Slims down the federal budget to a few, easy to understand sheets of paper, no 'earmarks' and no tons of paperwork. If you can't explain it to a room full of drunken sailors, you will not do well with the electorate. And heaven help you if the drunken sailors accuse *you* of overspending....

Yes that is satire of a sorts. A pure bit of needling at the over-intelligent, over-elected, under capable, and non-representative government we now have.

Works out better than what we have, no?

This is the old adage: 'The fastest way to stop your headache is to quit pounding your head against a wall.' Hurts like the Dickens when you stop, but that pain slowly eases...

If someone backing huge, encumbered legislation can't explain each line of it, and who CAN in Congress these days, then you, my fellow Americans, don't have enough Congresscritters to read the budget. It is one of those inverse proportion deals where, when more people are represented by a Congresscritter, the Congresscritter is less accountable to that larger population and can convince folks their votes are meaningless, whilst rallying a committed set of folks on the gravy train to 'Get Out The Vote' for them. Invert that proportion to fewer people and there is less chance to turn people off, less a feeling of being a numberless individual and a better chance of YOU personally knowing the scoundrel you are about to vote for.

I agree with Federal Farmer that Congress should never, ever, in a Federalist System, been given the chance to set its own size in the House without a National vote. I really would love to hear why I need people I don't know to represent me... really! And, no, the argument about 'manageability problems' means you haven't looked at some of the larger corporations that are able to function with a management team of much larger size. We invented that as we went along for businesses but Congress never had to learn to be expansive, welcome more points of view in and adapt to the circumstances of the electorate.

Shows, doesn't it?

So, if you try to raise 'hot button' issues like abortion, school prayer, vouchers and such, I will politely say: that is not the proper role for the federal government to have ANY say in these issues. Take a hike, not interested. I have other views that don't revolve around authoritarian government and *no* you can't make that 'good' in any way, shape or form by trying to get your pet project passed. That will make the system worse, not better.

And for those of you trying to press 'civil liberties' or torture or any of these other questions, I will refer you to The Law of Nations, The Laws of War and the Laws of Peace, and other such works like Blackstone's Commentaries on the English Law... the works that you were never taught about, so that you could have your buttons more easily pushed. You can't forget that the way we do things as societies to create governments has rational basis. You never learned that to be the case in the first place in a 'brass tacks' manner. I certainly wasn't, that is for damned sure.

But it was Ronald Reagan who kept the Dept. of Education... so why aren't these things being taught?

They are only the reasoned basis for societies, governments and Nations.

Can't have that, this 'thinking in a reasoned and rational manner', now, can we?

Of course those also tell of the inalienable rights each of us has to defend themselves when oppressed or confronted by war waged upon us as individuals. No government can take those from you as they suddenly reappear when you need them.

Very handy.

For the Iron Times ahead.