imported post
Renegade wrote:
No government, no individual, or groups, or organizations, can possess any sort of "just power" that violates and of these God-given rights. Government can not morally or justly interfere with our rights. Why are so many fellow citizens, law enforcement officers, and specifically, elected officials, ignorant with respect to our rights and duties?
Do they not believe in God?
"Government" is a contract between people for their convenience, and as a means of asserting the "collective will of the people". In the last quarter of the 18th century it was a novel idea that a "government" would exercise "just power" as opposed to "absolute power".
Having lived under absolute power and recently overthrown their former government and governors, the Founding Fathers attempted to keep their promise of not replacing one absolute power with another. They established, after a few false starts (see Articles of Confederation), what they hoped would be a workable contract between the government and the people who were to be governed. It is important to remember that the contract was drawn up and offered by the government, and not by "the people". "The People" got a chance (sort of) to vote on whether or not to accept the contract.
One of the big fears during this period was that "the government" would expand and usurp the rights of the States, and then the rights of "the people". This fear came from experience - the history of all previous governments was that they expanded until they were so overwhelming that they actually became overwhelmed, and then were toppled by barbarian hordes invading from the weak points of the borders.
Beginning in the early 1800's, and accellerating in fits and starts ever since (usually under the guise of "homeland defense") the government has used the argument of the sheer size of the federal system offers economy of cost and scale to take over what were supposed to be obligations of the States. In the mid-1900's the federal government "came to the rescue" of the individual States by asserting economic control over matters that had previously been issues between individual persons (think commerce and banking).
With no individual State able to oppose the federal government (aftermath of the Civil War made sure that would not happen again) the federal government went on expanding without any possible control against it. Not even Huey Long could fight the federal government - so instead he learned how to use is overwhelming size and stilted bureauracracy to steal from it. No single "reform" candidate can sucessfully take on the federal government - they would fare worse than Don Quiote tilting at miriad windmills. No "reform" platform can oppose the federal government, as it is the bureauracracy and not the political offices where the real power now lies.
Perhaps it is because we fell away from the Founding Fathers' vision of citizen statesmen - individuals who would serve the country for a term and then return to their previous life, making way for the next citizen statesman to step up. Representatives were given a term of only 2 years so they would be away from the people for only a short time - not long enough to become out of touch with the voice of the people. Senators were given a term of 6 years because they were the elite - selected politically by the governors of the states - and were expected to be the "steadying hand" against the demands of the "rabble". In other words, the Senators were to ensure that a relatively steady course was steered, while the Representatives were to bring the concerns of the people to the table for discussion. Additionally, the Representatives were the only ones allowed to introduce bills for appropriation of taxes, so that if their hand was too heavily in the pockets of the people they could be voted out and the replacement went in already warned not to become greedy.
Either "we, the people" got used to the federal government doing everything for everyone, or we became afraid that without being able to spread the cost across the whole population our pockets would become too light. Thus, folks in Wyoming have to support the perpetual rebuillding of homes along Hurricane Alley, instead of those folks coming up against the fact that eventually they will go bankrupt if they can only use their own $$.
Now, I don't mind the President calling up the Ohio (as an example) National Guard to fight forest fires in California, so long as California pays for their costs. But I do think it would have been better for the Governor of California to call around and see if he could personally rent another state's National Guard, and only turn to the President if everybody turned him down. If California had gone bankrupt renting Guard units and needed more help, it would probably be OK in my book to call on the President to mobilize some units - but that depends on how I see the value of California continuing to exist. Maybe :lol:they ought to go broke and be bought up by Wyoming - it has possibilities, no? :quirky
The problem the OP is faced with is that "the people" have very little "collective will" to assert anymore. The "will" is now firmly entrenched in the bureaucracy. The politicians cannot let the bureauracracy founder or they [the politicians] will lose their place at the head of the trough that feeds the brueauracracy. Thus, the system seeks not only to perpetuate but to expand itself. One day it
will become too big for itself and will burst like a ripe boil. (sorry for the image)
What was it Jefferson said about refreshing the roots of the Tree of Liberty?
stay safe.
skidmark
*edited for typos