There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.
“Binge drinking is bad.” No, wait. Wrong one.
“Compromise is good.”
If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along. You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters. You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.
In other words, passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity. You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law. If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong. You should demand a refund on that free public education.
Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws. It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind. It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary. Less was more. Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred. (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)
We have come a long way from that original intent. Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want. They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it. And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.
These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place. Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier. Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend. The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening. It has brought us to a very scary place. Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why. It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.
There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive. (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.) But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…) These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time. To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.
To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well. These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle. The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)
What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from. One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not. What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”. Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….
So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists) If you give it a moment of thought, does it make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism? It’s really as simple as that. The line in the sand is Force.
In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along. We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms. Ever.
If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport. And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…
(Originally Posted 012012. Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Lol!!!! Don’t you mean you will be taking his Ponzi schemed $50 bill back and will return it to the rightful owners……Wall Street? It was nice bloggin at you Mike. I will continue to follow your posts. Good luck vs. Stan, take him for more than $50.
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Sooooo when my parents/”dependants” come out, let them know that they are the problem with our system and that they are the reason this country is in so much trouble. Tell them that there usefulness has run its course, and Roosevelt be dammned for his Socialist programs. They worked all their life (my father still works at 79), for mediocre wages and managed to raise 7 children.
I see America as people
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:53 pm
I’ve had exactly these conversations with your parents and probably will again. The fact that they depend on a bankrupt ponzi scheme is not their fault. Their dependency upon the system was and still is intentional and fostered by those who want their votes motivated by their fear… When alternatives that would “save” social security were proposed in the early 2000’s the Democrat party demeaned and demagogued them until they were shelved.
Denying a problem does not make it go away.
It’s never too late to think about what you really believe. Thanks for reading!
And, you spelled “so” with too many “o’s”.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Oh, and I’m taking your dad’s $50 from him at poker.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Compromise is what is lacking when a dictator is in power. This country needs moderates like Olympia Snow. I am a registered Republican, NRA member, avid hunter, shooter and small business owner. I voted for Obama and will do so again. Healthcare eats up 20% of my families income with fuel and heating oil taking up another 20%. I work two jobs and raise 4 kids.
I am a moderate or what you would probably refer to as a Communist, and without “Socialistic” programs like social security and medicare my parents would be in rocking chairs rocking their last few years away. Instead they will be visiting you in the next few weeks. 🙂
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:27 pm
So many points…
First, there should be no compromising the U.S. Constitution. If you agree with this then more discussion is due. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Snowe did regularly while calling herself a “Republican”. Democrats do this always as it stands in the way of their desired paradigm.
Second, the reason health care costs so much is because government regulations and subsidies drive the cost of care through the roof. In other words, it is exactly the government interference you support that is causing your problem. Obama sold his socialized medicine idea under the auspices that it was insurance companies who were to blame and there was “not enough choice”… so the solution he offers is the mother of all insurance monopolies known as Obama Care? Don’t let yourself be fooled, it has done nothing and will do nothing to reduce costs… in fact it will drastically raise your taxes next year. (notice, not a campaign year.)
Third, In regard to Social Security and Medicaid… whether or not your parents are on it is irrelevant to the point that these Socialist programs initiated under Roosevelt have created en entire class of dependants (as your statement illustrates) and are at the center of our fiscal problem here in the U.S. (And around the world if you are paying attention.)
Finally, I would recommend taking a hard look at the philosophical foundation of the folks you are voting for. You may not like what you see, or you may want to change your party affiliation. This is one of the reasons I like what is going on. It is forcing people to really think about where they stand and what they believe. I didn’t call you a communist, but it’s on your mind. May be some of what you have read is causing you discomfort. That is my intent.
Everything you wrote is salient and worthy of discussing.
January 24th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Pretty good post over all- especially the part about it being deliberately difficult for the government to do anything though. A few counterpoints though
-Isn’t every financial transaction, in a sense, a compromise? When you’re selling you want to receive as much as possible. When buying, you want to pay as little as possible. In the end, we meet in the middle.
-One side subscribes to individual freedom? I’d say one side subscribes to individual social freedom, the other to individual economic freedom. I wish the Reps would divorce themselves from all of these “social conservative” issues.
January 24th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Whether or not coming to a financial agreement may or may not be a compromise, only the individuals involved can determine that for themselves.
Governing is not a financial transaction… the government employs force to remove your money from you. You do not have the option of walking away from the “deal”. If you did it would result in financial ruin and ultimately you being incarcerated by people with guns. This cannot be done to you by the guy who want to buy your car.
Our government is based on free-market capitalism and the individuals liberty it protects. It is supposed to be constitutionally limited. So any compromise with a socialist/statist moves us further from our founding document and the limits intentionally put in place. In my opinion there should be no compromise in regard to the U.S. Constitution. It has a process for amending should that be needed or desired. Unfortunately most Americans have no idea what the nature of our government is let alone a basic understanding of the Constitution so the politicians get away with doing whatever they want and nobody calls them on it. Hopefully that is changing.
January 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm